Benson55

159 a week right now.
Compare it to other countries like Canada/Aus/NZ/USA and you will see its generous.

Pulaski

You might want to exclude the US from that list. .... My US SS is forecast to be around three times the payment I will get for my UK state pension. Both will be "fully paid up" by the time I retire.

scot47

Benson "very generous"?? Compared to which country ? Name one !

Pulaski

He already named four .... Though I believe he is wrong about at least one of the ones he listed.

durham_lad

I agree.

I have 23 years of payments into the US system and my estimated pension will be 3 times what my estimated UK pension will be after 30 years of payments.

However, I was always a high earner in the US and my high SS pension will reflect that. I don't know what I would expect to get if I had been on the median US wage instead of 3 times the median.

Pulaski

It's all relative, but at the bottom end of the payscale (first $11,000/yr IIRC), SS pays 90% of your pre-retirement income.

Benson55

Depends in the US what you were earning does not in the UK.

Pulaski

See #246, above. SS is very "generous" to the lowest paid, allowing them to retire on almost full income.

mrken30

It used to make a difference in the UK under SERPS, but the UK changed the rules.

scot47

Benson - look at pensions in the EU. UK pension is one of the lowest.


Paying Nat Ins Contributions by cheque or bank draft was never an issue for me. Very easy - even at the times when I had no UK current account and could not sign personal cheques. Get a bank draft in pounds sterling from your bank. Post it registered to Longbenton.

BristolUK

Genuine question.
Being in Canada I hear a lot about people with health benefits losing them when no longer employed and having great difficulty with prescription costs - because they're not (relatively) cheap like in the UK and are full cost.

For example, I have a blood pressure meds of about $100 and eye drops that are $75.

Not only would they be 'cheap' in the UK, they're free if you're 60 (among other reasons).

What's the situation in the US if you're retired? Do those employee benefits continue?

Pulaski

I some cases, yes, I believe so, until you reach statutory retirement age. Then you go onto Medicare, and have a choice of plans, from "very low" monthly base cost with relatively pricey drugs, to those with a higher base monthly cost and cheaper drugs. But I am far enough from retirement that I haven't researched it and only really know what I have absorbed from reading BE posts.

BristolUK

Thanks.

It's a strange thing and rarely seems discussed "in public" as if it's too unseemly or something.

Up here I see occasional references to people not wanting to lose jobs because they will no longer have meds covered.

The topic of meds not being included outside of in patient treatment comes up and until this province got one, a catastrophic drugs cost plan was a big issue because of so many not having coverage even if employed.

The Seniors Drug plan is also discussed every time their co-payment goes up.

But it's like a big secret as to how people do when they retire from work where ongoing meds were covered by employee benefits.

durham_lad

When I retired in 2010 I continued to have insurance through my old company at employee group rates. After 3 years the policy changed and retirees had to pay the full, unsubsidized, group rates and within 4 years our insurance policy for myself and wife went from $80/month to $856/month and the deductibles and co-pays shot upwards as well. For prescriptions, I only had 1 and it was a generic, I had to pay the first $500 and then it went to group costs which for my generic was $15 per 90 day mail order.

So I guess the answer to your question is that it very much depends on the company.

BristolUK

And even if you're lucky enough to keep it, it might not last long at the same level.

Makes you wonder why it's not talked about more doesn't it.