| Author |
Message |
D. Walden
Guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2010 - 03:17 pm: |   |
SO THIS is it, I will have to work until I am 66, or for some others, until they are 67.
I’ve been paying tax and stamps since I was 15 and yet the chosen not-so-few, who my taxes helped to fund their university education, mortgages and private pensions, will be sailing off on their yachts into retirement when they are 55 or 60. It seems that I will have to work longer because of the money wasted by the States on Suez and so many other mismanaged projects.
I wonder how many of the States members responsible for our financial mess will still be working when they are 67? Most of them do very little now, except waste our money.
Anyone who has worked for more than 45 years or more should be entitled to retire at the age of 65. I am sure the extra tax taken off me won’t go towards upgrading the schools or reintroducing the children’s dental scheme.
No doubt it will go on consultant fees for the next hare-brained States idea or maybe they can destroy another beautiful harbour and build yet another marina for one percent of the population to use.
D. WALDEN. |
Deputy Mark Dorey
Guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2010 - 03:33 pm: | |
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on the above letter.
The full-rate old age pension is £174.65 per week. Currently, a husband who is older than his wife can claim an additional £87.50 per week in respect of his wife while she is under 65. When she reaches 65, the addition to the husband's pension stops and she is assessed for her own pension.
In 2003, the States approved some far-reaching changes to social insurance.
These included changes to old age pensions and widow's benefits. There was a need to remove discriminatory provisions within the scheme. The changes individualised pension entitlements and made all the rules gender neutral.
The particular change to which your correspondent refers is that from 1 January 2014, men will not be able to claim the additional pension for their wife if she is under 65. The States agreed that a 10-year lead-in was needed, which is why the new rules start from 1 January 2014. But men who are already receiving the additional pension at the end of 2013 will not be affected.
Unfortunately, whenever you make a change on a particular date, people will fall one side or the other and your correspondent is affected.
Your correspondent would prefer a start date of 2020, which is the date when pension age starts to increase. That change has also been given 10 years' notice, since it was approved by the States in 2009.
Deputy Mark Dorey,
Minister,
Social Security Department |
Anon
Guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2010 - 03:22 pm: | |
IN RESPONSE to your article on 8 June, I will be one of those younger wives and feel that it is unfair that as a housewife/ homemaker, I would either have to be a burden on my husband's pension or when he retires, I will go out to work and he can become the one to do those home chores.
It has come as a surprise to us and annoying that the cut-off date for married allowance is 2014. Who thought of that date?
We miss it by two years and although we have four years to save to spend some time as a couple when my husband retires, we were looking forward to having a married couple allowance.
There are not many incentives as it is for marriage these days and by taking that last perk away for married couples, I don't see many wives being able to stop working until they are 65 and what if the younger wives need to be at home too, if the older husband is unwell etc?
I can think of many excuses, but it still becomes a sad fact that being a housewife/homemaker is even more an undervalued job than before, and taking the marriage allowance away not only could be a strain on the husband's pocket, but a lonely retirement for him too.
Not many people get married nowadays or even stick at being married. Therefore, why take away this allowance?
Can you find out why this date 2014 was chosen? Why not 2020, because most of us who married in the 1970s are of a generation who have looked forward to having quality time together on our husbands' retirement, in sickness and in health?
Name and address withheld. |
M. B. Woodland
Guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 07, 2009 - 02:54 pm: | |
ON THURSDAY 1 October, upon waking from a post prandial snooze, I was in time to hear Deputy McNulty Bauer speak about how totally misrepresented were her views of funding future pesky pensions, by the media. Of course, one had to listen carefully between the lines to avoid any subliminal cringe factor.
Why she should feel aggrieved when getting front-page Press coverage for nothing, when that would be any political spin guru's dream. Also, by use of the telephone, managed to get more column bites, albeit on an inside page - this free exposure to the electorate must be a worthwhile bonus.
Rather sadly, as the presentation to the Assembly went on, a small suspicion crept in that she would have had greater satisfaction if the House rules allowed her the selective judicious anatomical application of a Creme Brulee blow torch, particularly as Comment in the Guernsey Press had the sheer effrontery to print many letters from worried and irate pensioners.
But despair not, she really loves us oldies and would willingly give us a point seven increase in the currently approved pension if funds permitted.
I suppose we might ponder just how many nice Belgian chocolates such largesse would buy? Perhaps our new £250,000 office in that city of the EU would be able to negotiate a discount for bulk purchase.
And yes, I did hear the original gaffe on a Sunday phone in.
M. B. WOODLAND. |
T. Butcher
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 07, 2009 - 03:17 pm: | |
A LOT has been said about us pensioners having some of our entitlement taken away from us. I really think that if the States need to take money off pensioners, it should be from the ones who do not need it, such as the retired States employees, who, I believe, are on a good screw, at the expense of all of us who have paid our dues.
Also they should look at the other pensioners who are still getting vast amounts of income from other sources. I really think some sort of means test should be done, to see if you 'need' your pension. If you're found to receive more than a certain sum, which would have to be sorted by the means test, you lose it.
Robin Hood tried to help the poor by robbing the rich to give to them, but ever since then, it's the rich robbing the poor all the time. Come on, you so called States members, get back into the real world and understand us, the people you are supposed to be representing/working for. You do not seem to be - you all seem to be individualists, working for yourselves and doing just as you wish and not taking any notice of us, Joe Public.
While on the subject of the States, when something important or crucial is asked of them, why do they always avoid giving a direct answer? Deputies, we do know why. You cannot fool all of us, all of the time.
T. BUTCHER |
M. F. Cooper
Guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 29, 2009 - 01:25 pm: | |
RECENTLY, a number of interesting subjects have arisen in the media regarding political subjects that could have a considerable effect on the lives of those of us who live permanently in this island.
The front page report (5 August) setting out Deputy McNulty Bauer's ideas regarding the old age pension scheme is to say the least surprising, ill-informed and in my opinion very unfortunate.
To say that £170 a week is too generous and needs to be reduced seems to completely misunderstand the thinking behind the scheme.
Also to compare the Guernsey OAP with the UK OAP of £90.70 ignores the concept that the provision of support for a community usually consists of a package of benefits balanced out by a package of taxes collected in various ways from the whole population.
For example, the UK operates a health scheme (the NHS) that is basically non-contributory, whereas all adults including pensioners in the Bailiwick (except Sark) are liable to pay contributions based on income (the non-employed) or earnings (the employed and self-employed) for the GP, pharmaceutical and specialist health services as well as the Long Term Care Scheme.
Although the same RPI calculation is applied to salaries and wages, and also to the annual review of the pension rate, it should be borne in mind that the actual sum of money will vary considerably between individual pensioners because not all receive the full rate.
The consequence of applying the same increase to costs of services and prices means that the actual added cost on prices and services greatly exceeds the cash value of the annual increase received by the pensioner. To pay a much reduced OAP as suggested would result in an increase in the number of applications for supplementary benefit which as a means-tested benefit is a labour-intensive scheme to administer.
I understand that there are people living in houses obtained in the past for their family and now they are older they find meeting the costs of keeping the house in reasonable condition is proving extremely difficult. A pension decrease of whatever rate will only add to the difficulties faced by older people, many of whom have contributed to the quality of life in the islands.
M. F. COOPER. |
S. Mauger
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 24, 2009 - 02:45 pm: | |
YES, I agree with earlier letters that a retirement age of 67 should be for everyone and stamps paid up to that age, whether personal pension or not. Early retirement is just the sack, no matter which way you look at it. If people do not 'fit the purpose' in one job, why do they think they can go up the ladder and become deputies or Jurats?
If early retirement was stopped and all people retiring were stopped from retiring early, i.e. 55 or 60, we all could retire at 65. No age change for the normal person or an increase in contributions.
S. MAUGER. |
Bryan Vandertang
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 24, 2009 - 02:43 pm: | |
DEPUTY McNulty Bauer's recent comments concerning pensions serve to illustrate that which a great many islanders have recognised for a considerable time, that our politicians are well intentioned but in many cases woefully out of touch with reality.
The deputy's comments emit an aura of opulent wellbeing and at the same time a spine-chilling insensitivity. Her fumbled attempt - in a radio interview - to claim 'media misquoting' and distortion of her objective was hardly convincing and did nothing to regain her credibility.
Guernsey old age pension may be greater than that in the UK but local pensioners do not receive the fringe benefits that UK pensioners automatically receive, such as, among others, a winter fuel allowance, and the Guernsey cost of living is significantly higher than that on the mainland. It should also be noted that the UK old age pension starts at 60.
The States have once again lacked the courage to take the logical and relatively painless course - to increase contributions by a small amount now. The chosen course has the potential to be very costly in the long term as it is not too difficult to visualise invalidity claims for the two years prior to pensionable age and these could be very much easier to 'prove' than disprove.
BRYAN VANDERTANG. |
Vera Martel
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 01:55 pm: | |
WORKING until we are 67 – is that everyone, or will we still get States workers, i.e. teachers, civil servants, doctors and the like retiring earlier? It should be 67 before anyone can claim pension money from the States. Even if people have a private pension and stop work, social security must still be paid including ex deputies and their pension. The practice of early retirement (just a hoodwinking term for the sack) should be stopped. If too ill to work, they should be on sick benefit and turn up as deputies or jurats if they are not up to their job. Why should the people be fobbed off with these people? Let’s make all people equal.
VERA MARTEL, |
Name Witheld
Guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - 01:37 pm: | |
RE. RETHINK unfair benefits system: I totally agree with this writer’s comments.
Many years ago my mother died and left my father with five children to bring up single-handedly, albeit with help from our elderly grandmother. He went to work every day so he could support his children, never feeling the need to ask the States for various benefits.
Now, some years later, he has an illness. I recently took him to Social Security to see if they could help pay towards his treatment as he is a pensioner now, only to be told he has too much saved.
How he can have too much saved after bringing up five children on only a greenhouse worker’s wage is beyond me.
Also, entering the offices was like walking into a playground with all the children running around while their single mothers were waiting for their weekly handouts. Where’s the fairness in that?
Yes, some of these people may genuinely need help, but the majority could get a job to support their growing families. |
Rosie Henderson
Guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - 01:36 pm: | |
CARLA MCNULTY BAUER thinks that our island is short of money, but she also thinks that the island can afford £250,000,000 (I think that’s enough zeros), as she voted for the incinerator. Surely she has her priorities wrong?
If the deputies feel that the island needs to save, one alternative is to reverse the decision on the incinerator, another would be to look closely at the civil service pensions which are, I believe, index-linked and final earning-linked.
This type of pension is being given up as not being affordable all over the world, perhaps Guernsey should follow.
A third saving would be to limit the number of civil servants themselves. Not I hasten to add those who are front line such as nurses, doctors, teachers, physicians etc. etc. but look to the administrators, from how many clerks there are to how many managers of those clerks, how many managers of the managers of those clerks etc.
Why does each department have to have tiers of managers? And what on earth do these people manage as it appears that there are a whole host of problems they can’t or won’t solve?
Some of the administrative cost saving could be utilised to hire new frontline workers to top up an understaffed social service area, some perhaps to hire psychiatrists to try to heal, or at least help the mentally ill.
Guernsey needs new schools, a decent mental health service which is staffed by professionals – it doesn’t need an incinerator.
It also doesn’t need its elected servants to find savings from the poorest members of its society.
It is said that a society should be judged by its treatment of its poorest member. By that judgement the Carla McNulty Bauer’s of this world would be found lacking. |
Name Witheld
Guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - 01:35 pm: | |
LIKE others who have already written, I was disgusted to read Deputy Carla McNulty Bauer’s
remarks on the Guernsey old age pension being too generous.
A significant proportion of those she attacked are like me from the generation of those who fought in the Second World War, and by winning we were able to release the Channel Islands from Nazi occupation.
Had we not achieved this, she would have been unable to make such remarks in public, or paid a very nasty penalty if she had.
Those who made the supreme sacrifice did not of course receive anything, which she does not bother to mention.
To achieve this splendid pension it should be noted many of us have to offset this by paying to the States a monthly sum – in case we ever have to cause the States to have to put us into residential care. In our case I pay £63.48 a month and my wife £44.93, a matter she does not see fit to take into account.
Like many other ex-servicemen I do not receive the full Guernsey OAP as, during my time in the Royal Navy, one had to pay into the UK social security system and not Guernsey’s. The UK proportion of the pension is at a lower rate.
We are lucky enough to have no
problem in receiving sufficient total income to cover our needs, with happily some extra to spare.
When I ceased commuting and stayed here full time, the Royal Navy paid me a quarter of a UK civil servant EO wage to raise and administer an RNXS unit. This averaged some 50 persons of both sexes to man the naval part of Castle Cornet.
My remit happened to include Jersey, but that of course is nothing to do with Guernsey.
This unit was in those days very important, as in war it would control the merchant shipping the island would need to arrive to survive. With the end of the Cold War it was no longer required and was disbanded.
The volunteers who made up our number were only paid travelling money from their homes for weekly training nights and subsistence in Nato and national exercises plus if they were sent on to the UK on courses. They could serve until they were 70 (not 65).
Of our 50 or so members (not counting Jersey, a different problem), I can only think of about three of them who would probably not have needed the full GSSA pension, unless they were lucky enough to have a full service pension or one from their firm.
The opinion article on page 28 of the Guernsey Press of 5 August sums up the general situation brilliantly. Those who have not read it should do so now. |
A. B. Jefferys
Guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - 01:34 pm: | |
AS A pensioner I will not apologise to McNulty Bauer for being alive. |
Carla McNulty Bauer
Guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - 01:33 pm: | |
I MUST make it absolutely clear that I am not suggesting that the level of pensions paid out to all pensioners, currently at a maximum rate of £171.25 per week, should be reduced or cut, now or in the future.
What I am suggesting is that since the current approach to pensions is likely to cost many islanders more in the future, through increased contributions and due to the ageing population, that we should stand back and question whether the current policy of annual increases above inflation remains appropriate. Additional benefits are and should be available for those who are genuinely in need.
My aspirations are to keep pensions fair to pensioners while keeping contributions from the working age population and the business community at reasonable levels. |
Lance Vaudin
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 11, 2009 - 01:40 pm: | |
OOPS. Rather the wrong decision made by our elected at the end of July. Certainly not what the populous of Guernsey, including those with bountiful intellect, wished to happen. Well, there was probably an influx of additional tax from the sale of alcohol that evening with souls being drowned (no pun intended to the Titanic situation Guernsey seems to be in).
Maybe there should be a super tax on coffin nails, as some politicians could fund our shortfall with the quantity being used presently. |
R. S. Mauger
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 11, 2009 - 01:37 pm: | |
WRITING to your column again, I would like to refer to our island which contains villains and heroes.
Referring to the latest comments of local politician Deputy Carla McNulty Bauer that our pension payouts are too generous. Which planet is this deputy on? How dare she indicate that the UK amount of £90.70 compared with our £171.25 makes ours too much and in need of reducing?
Obviously Deputy McNulty Bauer has no money worries at all, unlike most pensioners. Not all have great savings to rely on. Of course Guernsey is more expensive to live on compared to the UK so there is no comparison. What should be looked at are those who are milking our social services handouts. That is very frustrating and there are thousands doing it, many not wishing to work, many coming over here and taking the state for a ride at our expense.
Deputy McNulty Bauer is looking in the wrong corner for excuses to save money and wishes to penalise the hard working innocent. This will be remembered as another expensive ‘gaff’ by another politician for her future at the next election.
Moving on to heroes, how fantastic to see the cars at Cobo car park being removed at last. Heroes like Rodney Brouard and co. stepping up and finally doing something about it. A true Guernsey attitude unlike our frustrating politicians and States departments who have not the power to intervene.
It comes to something when islanders become so frustrated they have to take the law into their own hands to do something. A real Guernsey spirit.
I am sure we will see more of this attitude in the future, not quite ‘anarchy’ but it could be on the way. The Guernsey people are fed up with a lack of good government leadership.
P.S. Maybe at the next election Rodney Brouard will stand and be elected as our chief minister. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
