Cut old people's benefits, they'll die soon anyway
Discussion
V8 Fettler said:
Good employment prospects with a continuous income stream = confidence and ability to borrow money
If you had similar access to credit to today, maybe. When looking for my first mortgage 35 years ago the normal multiplier was 2.5x the male income + 1x the female and HP usually required 1/3 deposit. I suspect it was stricter in 1969 but it did contribute to keeping house prices down.ETA that mortgate would've got us a studio flat in a crap part of town. We looked to move away but there weren't the jobs as it was during a recession.
Edited by Sticks. on Tuesday 6th October 18:25
Welshbeef said:
Simple answer
1.Move the winter fuel allowance into state pension
2. Have a separate income tax threshold for 75yo or whatever age the winter fuel allowance comes in and say anyone earning over £20k drop the allowance enough to strip out the winter fuel allowance. This move totally eliminates the means tested and the cost the the testing.
Also what is the actual cost currently of
1. Free TV licence
2. free bus service
3. Winter fuel allowance
It could be that these are so small in total govt budget terms it's really pointless wasting time trying to fix it.
This^^^^ 1.Move the winter fuel allowance into state pension
2. Have a separate income tax threshold for 75yo or whatever age the winter fuel allowance comes in and say anyone earning over £20k drop the allowance enough to strip out the winter fuel allowance. This move totally eliminates the means tested and the cost the the testing.
Also what is the actual cost currently of
1. Free TV licence
2. free bus service
3. Winter fuel allowance
It could be that these are so small in total govt budget terms it's really pointless wasting time trying to fix it.
What it would cost to amend the system probably will cost more. Probably much more!
The 'free' tv licence is as I pointed out before only to those age 75+, and you have to apply for it anyway.
The free bus pass has time and other restrictions. Many, like me - I got mine when I was 60 - hardly use them anyway. It's just handy. But I used it just the once in 5 years, and when it expired I didn't bother renewing it (until that git Wild spouted a few words this week, so I reapplied!).
Oddly, others I know don't use theirs either except one couple I know, who have a nice tidy earning money business, he drives the latest Jag, she a Porsche, and they use their bus passes at every opportunity - but knowing someone who worked for them, I'm not in the least surprised. Tight s...!
As for the WFA, most of the people I know give theirs to charity or hospices etc. Me? No, I used it to compensate against my rip-off energy supplier! It's all swings and roundabouts.
Oh, just remembered, you have all missed out one free benefit for pensioners (60+): free prescriptions. But to put this into some sort of perspective, I don't know many who go running to the docs - I'd much rather keep away from them unless totally necessary! In fact, it might even be counter-productive: I had been mossie bitten really badly in Mexico and on return here went to the doc. He didn't give me a presc, but told me what I should go and get from the pharmacist - methinks if I had been younger he would have written out a prescription. Think I have had 4 free presc. in 5 years and one of those was for antibiotics for a tooth infection - dentist presc.
Yeah, savings probably would not meet the cost of implementation.
Edited by dandarez on Tuesday 6th October 19:24
dandarez said:
This^^^^
What it would cost to amend the system probably will cost more. Probably much more!
The 'free' tv licence is as I pointed out before only to those age 75+, and you have to apply for it anyway.
The free bus pass has time and other restrictions. Many, like me - I got mine when I was 60 - hardly use them anyway. It's just handy. But I used it just the once in 5 years, and when it expired I didn't bother renewing it (until that git Wild spouted a few words this week, so I reapplied!).
Oddly, others I know don't use theirs either except one couple I know, who have a nice tidy earning money business, he drives the latest Jag, she a Porsche, and they use their bus passes at every opportunity - but knowing someone who worked for them, I'm not in the least surprised. Tight s...!
As for the WFA, most of the people I know give theirs to charity or hospices etc. Me? No, I used it to compensate against my rip-off energy supplier! It's all swings and roundabouts.
Oh, just remembered, you have all missed out one free benefit for pensioners (60+): free prescriptions. But to put this into some sort of perspective, I don't know many who go running to the docs - I'd much rather keep away from them unless totally necessary! In fact, it might even be counter-productive: I had been mossie bitten really badly in Mexico and on return here went to the doc. He didn't give me a presc, but told me what I should go and get from the pharmacist - methinks if I had been younger he would have written out a prescription. Think I have had 4 free presc. in 5 years and one of those was for antibiotics for a tooth infection - dentist presc.
Yeah, savings probably would not meet the cost of implementation.
Prescriptions should be as it is for workers. If you earn more than the threshold you pay if not it's free. What it would cost to amend the system probably will cost more. Probably much more!
The 'free' tv licence is as I pointed out before only to those age 75+, and you have to apply for it anyway.
The free bus pass has time and other restrictions. Many, like me - I got mine when I was 60 - hardly use them anyway. It's just handy. But I used it just the once in 5 years, and when it expired I didn't bother renewing it (until that git Wild spouted a few words this week, so I reapplied!).
Oddly, others I know don't use theirs either except one couple I know, who have a nice tidy earning money business, he drives the latest Jag, she a Porsche, and they use their bus passes at every opportunity - but knowing someone who worked for them, I'm not in the least surprised. Tight s...!
As for the WFA, most of the people I know give theirs to charity or hospices etc. Me? No, I used it to compensate against my rip-off energy supplier! It's all swings and roundabouts.
Oh, just remembered, you have all missed out one free benefit for pensioners (60+): free prescriptions. But to put this into some sort of perspective, I don't know many who go running to the docs - I'd much rather keep away from them unless totally necessary! In fact, it might even be counter-productive: I had been mossie bitten really badly in Mexico and on return here went to the doc. He didn't give me a presc, but told me what I should go and get from the pharmacist - methinks if I had been younger he would have written out a prescription. Think I have had 4 free presc. in 5 years and one of those was for antibiotics for a tooth infection - dentist presc.
Yeah, savings probably would not meet the cost of implementation.
Edited by dandarez on Tuesday 6th October 19:24
If your of ill health then you pay the £100 annual fee and fill yer boots.
Again though what does the free prescriptions actually cost the govt for pensioners? It could be huge or tiny or not worth looking into as savings will be a small slice of a small cake.
Pensioners cut their income and it does have a direct impact on a proportion of the economy they spend high as a % of income as it's generally low so cut it then those great little village shops tea rooms milk man summer fates charity donations disappear.
Net net impact is key.
If you can stop / draw a line in the sand stopping any new pensioners from say 1990 onwards getting the benefit then fine or x date that stops it ballooning and those with the benefit will reduce and at some point stop.
Funk said:
Pensioner benefits should be means-tested - those who don't need them shouldn't sponge off the State when that money could be used beneficially elsewhere. .
Well as someone who has paid into the system over many years I rather disagree with that sentiment.When I was earning the square root of pheque all the State was helping itself to my meagre pay packet with NI deductions. Had I been offered the chance to keep the money and opt out of the system and take my own chances your argument may be valid.
Through my own efforts I now probably won't need my free bus pass , eye tests and state pension when the time comes.
But I shall grab it all with both hands.
Why? Because I bloody well paid for it, many times over.
Your accusation that people who have paid into the system over 40 years are "spongers" is very wide of the mark.
audidoody said:
Well as someone who has paid into the system over many years I rather disagree with that sentiment.
When I was earning the square root of pheque all the State was helping itself to my meagre pay packet with NI deductions. Had I been offered the chance to keep the money and opt out of the system and take my own chances your argument may be valid.
Through my own efforts I now probably won't need my free bus pass , eye tests and state pension when the time comes.
But I shall grab it all with both hands.
Why? Because I bloody well paid for it, many times over.
Your accusation that people who have paid into the system over 40 years are "spongers" is very wide of the mark.
But when you were earning 'the square root of pheque all' the amount of NIC you were paying was nowhere near enough to cover the cost of benefits that you will receive - that's the problem!When I was earning the square root of pheque all the State was helping itself to my meagre pay packet with NI deductions. Had I been offered the chance to keep the money and opt out of the system and take my own chances your argument may be valid.
Through my own efforts I now probably won't need my free bus pass , eye tests and state pension when the time comes.
But I shall grab it all with both hands.
Why? Because I bloody well paid for it, many times over.
Your accusation that people who have paid into the system over 40 years are "spongers" is very wide of the mark.
audidoody said:
Well as someone who has paid into the system over many years I rather disagree with that sentiment.
When I was earning the square root of pheque all the State was helping itself to my meagre pay packet with NI deductions. Had I been offered the chance to keep the money and opt out of the system and take my own chances your argument may be valid.
Through my own efforts I now probably won't need my free bus pass , eye tests and state pension when the time comes.
But I shall grab it all with both hands.
Why? Because I bloody well paid for it, many times over.
Your accusation that people who have paid into the system over 40 years are "spongers" is very wide of the mark.
Take a look at your last P60 to see what you paid in on NI. When I was earning the square root of pheque all the State was helping itself to my meagre pay packet with NI deductions. Had I been offered the chance to keep the money and opt out of the system and take my own chances your argument may be valid.
Through my own efforts I now probably won't need my free bus pass , eye tests and state pension when the time comes.
But I shall grab it all with both hands.
Why? Because I bloody well paid for it, many times over.
Your accusation that people who have paid into the system over 40 years are "spongers" is very wide of the mark.
That is also supposed to pay for the NHS.. But leave that aside if that value doesn't equal £7,500 which will be the state pension value when you retire it means your takin out more than you have paid in. So those greedy hands open wide are indeed that greedy and others have and will be paying for you.
Sticks. said:
V8 Fettler said:
Good employment prospects with a continuous income stream = confidence and ability to borrow money
If you had similar access to credit to today, maybe. When looking for my first mortgage 35 years ago the normal multiplier was 2.5x the male income + 1x the female and HP usually required 1/3 deposit. I suspect it was stricter in 1969 but it did contribute to keeping house prices down.ETA that mortgate would've got us a studio flat in a crap part of town. We looked to move away but there weren't the jobs as it was during a recession.
Edited by Sticks. on Tuesday 6th October 18:25
Welshbeef said:
Take a look at your last P60 to see what you paid in on NI.
That is also supposed to pay for the NHS.. But leave that aside if that value doesn't equal £7,500 which will be the state pension value when you retire it means your takin out more than you have paid in. So those greedy hands open wide are indeed that greedy and others have and will be paying for you.
Not strictly speaking accurate as your employer will also be contributing 13.8% that otherwise could have gone to you. Also with a retirement age of 67 you will be paying in for 45 years or so to receive 25 years or so of benefit.That is also supposed to pay for the NHS.. But leave that aside if that value doesn't equal £7,500 which will be the state pension value when you retire it means your takin out more than you have paid in. So those greedy hands open wide are indeed that greedy and others have and will be paying for you.
This is supposed to be a National INSURANCE scheme, by all means start means testing it if you also at the same time cut employee and employer contributions by say 4% a piece to pay into a private pension and give people a refund of contributions already paid.
JagLover said:
Welshbeef said:
Take a look at your last P60 to see what you paid in on NI.
That is also supposed to pay for the NHS.. But leave that aside if that value doesn't equal £7,500 which will be the state pension value when you retire it means your takin out more than you have paid in. So those greedy hands open wide are indeed that greedy and others have and will be paying for you.
Not strictly speaking accurate as your employer will also be contributing 13.8% that otherwise could have gone to you. Also with a retirement age of 67 you will be paying in for 45 years or so to receive 25 years or so of benefit.That is also supposed to pay for the NHS.. But leave that aside if that value doesn't equal £7,500 which will be the state pension value when you retire it means your takin out more than you have paid in. So those greedy hands open wide are indeed that greedy and others have and will be paying for you.
This is supposed to be a National INSURANCE scheme, by all means start means testing it if you also at the same time cut employee and employer contributions by say 4% a piece to pay into a private pension and give people a refund of contributions already paid.
V8 Fettler said:
Sticks. said:
V8 Fettler said:
Good employment prospects with a continuous income stream = confidence and ability to borrow money
If you had similar access to credit to today, maybe. When looking for my first mortgage 35 years ago the normal multiplier was 2.5x the male income + 1x the female and HP usually required 1/3 deposit. I suspect it was stricter in 1969 but it did contribute to keeping house prices down.ETA that mortgate would've got us a studio flat in a crap part of town. We looked to move away but there weren't the jobs as it was during a recession.
Edited by Sticks. on Tuesday 6th October 18:25
A lot of people look at what pensioners now get for what they paid in. Personally, I look at what I got from what they paid in - free education and healthcare to 18 and the difference that has made to my life outcomes.
sidicks said:
JagLover said:
Welshbeef said:
Take a look at your last P60 to see what you paid in on NI.
That is also supposed to pay for the NHS.. But leave that aside if that value doesn't equal £7,500 which will be the state pension value when you retire it means your takin out more than you have paid in. So those greedy hands open wide are indeed that greedy and others have and will be paying for you.
Not strictly speaking accurate as your employer will also be contributing 13.8% that otherwise could have gone to you. Also with a retirement age of 67 you will be paying in for 45 years or so to receive 25 years or so of benefit.That is also supposed to pay for the NHS.. But leave that aside if that value doesn't equal £7,500 which will be the state pension value when you retire it means your takin out more than you have paid in. So those greedy hands open wide are indeed that greedy and others have and will be paying for you.
This is supposed to be a National INSURANCE scheme, by all means start means testing it if you also at the same time cut employee and employer contributions by say 4% a piece to pay into a private pension and give people a refund of contributions already paid.
REALIST123 said:
Are you saying that overall taxation isn't high enough? Very few taxes are ring fenced these days. If we removed a few layers of govenrment, starting with the European ones, and cut down the number of members in the layers that remained, perhaps we'd have enough taxes to pay for the NHS, a basic pension and basic welfare?
Given a £90bn deficit then that does suggest not enough taxes or too much spending. Personally I think it's more of the latter than the former, and I agree that focusing the spending more wisely would ensure adequate funds available for basic health and welfare etc.That still won't change the fact that most people will take out more than they put into the system!
syncii said:
Interesting point.
So the less you pay in, the less you should receive. Maybe we should roll that principle out to those in receipt of state benefits.
No, I'm saying no such thing!So the less you pay in, the less you should receive. Maybe we should roll that principle out to those in receipt of state benefits.
Inevitably the poorest in society, even those working and paying NIC, will take out much more than they put in. That's fine and an acceptable part of the system.
However, the system needs to be re-jigged to ensure that those who can put into the system but who choose not to, are penalised. And that the system of government focuses on the essentials at the expense of 'nice to haves', particularly where the NHS is concerned.
Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 7th October 09:48
Derek Smith said:
... The start was back at the time of she who mustn't be criticised, when home owning all of a sudden became a political point....
Shows more about your political bent Derek. It could equally be argued it started in the 60s and 70s when industry was brought to its knees by a bunch of no marks full of entitlement but not prepared to earn it. (Ironically those same people reaping "free" stuff now and moaning at the prospects of it being removed - old habits die hard?).
Or to the 40s and 50s by well meaning politicians not examining the unintended consequences of the Welfare State they were setting up and thought we needed.
Or the wars in the first half of the 20C that left us financially crippled and our population thinking they were owed something (which arguably they were).
Fundamentally facts of affordability don't change. Maybe the commentator you accused of wanting to kill people just realises this irrespective of the voting demographic it would damage...?
turbobloke said:
IIRC back in the 70s if you were a full-time teacher in the state sector and retired at 65 with that platinum plated final salary pension, the average life expectancy was a further 2 to 3 years. These days I suspect the pension payout will last a lot longer.
No way was the life expectancy for a teacher aged 65 only a further 2-3 years, back in the '70s!sidicks said:
Derek Smith said:
I'm not sure if you understand how the police 'pension scheme' worked.
A cut was taken from the pay of serving officers in theory to pay for the retired officers' pensions. It is a simple calculation that showed that more was taken out than paid out, and by a considerable percentage. From memory, it was the late 90s before the pension even drew even.
How the cashflows work doesn't change the true cost - the true cost of the pension that you receive is entirely unrelated to the pension paid to some bloke who retired two decades ago.A cut was taken from the pay of serving officers in theory to pay for the retired officers' pensions. It is a simple calculation that showed that more was taken out than paid out, and by a considerable percentage. From memory, it was the late 90s before the pension even drew even.
There was no pension fund, so the police scheme was a way of reducing the cost of policing for the government.
The police paid 12% in real terms. On top of that the pay scales took into account the 'benefits' of the pension. So at the one time, although this occurred in all such pay 'negotiations' ( the police side did not negotiate, they were told) the pay was reduced by over 5%, this at a time when the 'pension' paid out considerably less than the 12% reduction in pay. On top of that, there's the further 5% of gross, so somewhere about 16% creaming off.
On top of that, the 5% reduction rather cleverly included overtime, then a requirement for a living wage, and officers were obliged to work as well. But OT was not pensionable. So overtime pay was reduced by 5% for no reason. Yet at times, OT made up well over 1/3rd of my gross. So we have something over 20% of the agreed level of pay (before reductions for the benefits of the pension). If the employer had contributed an identical amount that would be over 40% of pay going towards a pension.
Given that over 50% of police officers died within 3-5 years after retirement, that's not taking into consideration the age at retirement, then you can see that the amount of money being creamed off was far in excess of the need.
Has this excess been invested - some hopes of course - there would have been even more excess.
That the life expectancy increased is not the argument. It is that the style of pension was nothing to do with pension. It was a grab back of policing costs, paid for out of the PC's pay.
The government has changed the pension arrangements, and one would hope that they are no longer taking the profits. There was a time, a few short years, when police officers got a benefit. Does it go over and above what was paid in by the police before that time? Of course not.
So the moans about the future is for a very few.
On top of that, the government paid well under what retiring officers were entitled to for some years. It was revealed in 2008. I'm still waiting for my money back, and will wait for a further minimum - that's minimum - of 6 months.
I am one of the lucky ones. I am likely to receive more, in real terms, than I paid in, but there are few of us. There were many others, the vast majority, who were forced into the pension scheme with no hope of getting even a reasonable percentage from it. Perhaps if you look at it as if I'm taking some of what was owed to them, it might make you feel better.
You have no idea how the police are, and have been, messed around by the government.
You have no idea of the way the pension was used to milk the pay of police officers, and at a time when they had to work 20+ hours of overtime a week just to make a living wage.
sidicks said:
turbobloke said:
IIRC back in the 70s if you were a full-time teacher in the state sector and retired at 65 with that platinum plated final salary pension, the average life expectancy was a further 2 to 3 years. These days I suspect the pension payout will last a lot longer.
No way was the life expectancy for a teacher aged 65 only a further 2-3 years, back in the '70s!Link said:
Key facts: (and these apply only from people retiring from stressful jobs):
For people retired at the age of 50, their average life span is 86;
whereas for people retired at the age of 65, their average life span is only 66.8.
For every year one works beyond age 55, one loses 2 years of life span on average.
The Boeing experience is that employees retiring at age of 65 receive pension checks for only 18 months, on average, prior to death. Similarly, the Lockheed experience is that employees retiring at age of 65 receive pension checks for only 17 months, on average, prior to death. I have heard the same figures for UK teachers (the article was in the Guardian, so it must be true…)
https://chriscroft.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/life-expectancy-after-retirement/For people retired at the age of 50, their average life span is 86;
whereas for people retired at the age of 65, their average life span is only 66.8.
For every year one works beyond age 55, one loses 2 years of life span on average.
The Boeing experience is that employees retiring at age of 65 receive pension checks for only 18 months, on average, prior to death. Similarly, the Lockheed experience is that employees retiring at age of 65 receive pension checks for only 17 months, on average, prior to death. I have heard the same figures for UK teachers (the article was in the Guardian, so it must be true…)
The Boeing and Lockheed numbers should be verifiable, there's a further link to follow (CBA as this was a passing comment initially) and apart from the tongue in cheek afterthought about The Guardian which I can't comment on
the idea doesn't seem so unlikely after all.V8 Fettler said:
Sticks. said:
V8 Fettler said:
Good employment prospects with a continuous income stream = confidence and ability to borrow money
If you had similar access to credit to today, maybe. When looking for my first mortgage 35 years ago the normal multiplier was 2.5x the male income + 1x the female and HP usually required 1/3 deposit. I suspect it was stricter in 1969 but it did contribute to keeping house prices down.ETA that mortgate would've got us a studio flat in a crap part of town. We looked to move away but there weren't the jobs as it was during a recession.
Edited by Sticks. on Tuesday 6th October 18:25
A mere 8 years ago you could get a 100% Plus mortgage that was interest only. It was called a "liar loan" and the banks didn't give a f
k about giving it to people. Infact the bank worker got a bonus. How about that for a "neat trick"?
Yet people are slaming pensioners for the ruination of the economy.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff