State pension goalposts moved again
Discussion
Blaster72 said:
TEKNOPUG said:
I think it should be completely scrapped. Why should the state fund your retirement? Why should the state make pension contributions to people that clearly don’t need the money? We’ve already established that we haven’t “paid into anything”. If you have to keep working into your 70’s, so what? If you want to retire, make suitable financial preparations for it. If you’re too old/infirm to work then you should be treated the same way as anyone else with a disability who can’t be employed. The government should set a date when everyone under say 25, will no longer be eligible for a state pension. They won’t be deducted NI from then on and they have 40+ years to save & plan accordingly.
Where have we established that we haven't paid into anything? https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance/overview
Atomic12C said:
The other alternative of course is higher NI contributions and/or higher Income taxation?
I do think that the continual raising of retirement age is not a fair proposal for the wok force of the UK.
On the other hand though, if people plan better and save money they can retire at a much younger age than the state pension start age.
All it needs it restraint on those un-need purchases and living within your means, in order that one can save for the future.
This mind-set though is going to be hard to accept for the current generation of spend, spend, spend who live their lives on credit with total expectation that interest rates will always be low.
Consumer driven economy - save now and spend less = economic slow downI do think that the continual raising of retirement age is not a fair proposal for the wok force of the UK.
On the other hand though, if people plan better and save money they can retire at a much younger age than the state pension start age.
All it needs it restraint on those un-need purchases and living within your means, in order that one can save for the future.
This mind-set though is going to be hard to accept for the current generation of spend, spend, spend who live their lives on credit with total expectation that interest rates will always be low.
Lose lose
But yes, I agree that sensibility in our earlier days are the key to stability in our later ones
TEKNOPUG said:
I think it should be completely scrapped. Why should the state fund your retirement? Why should the state make pension contributions to people that clearly don’t need the money? We’ve already established that we haven’t “paid into anything”. .
But we have National insurance is paid for the NHS and to build up an entitlement to the state pension. The fact that this is on a PAYG basis rather than into a fund does not change this fact.
It is fair and reasonable for increases in healthy years spent in retirement to result in an increase in the retirement age. Not to remove people's accrued pension rights.
TEKNOPUG said:
What do you think that you have paid into?
I know what you're getting at, there is no growing fund paid into with my NI contributions. I have however already paid 27 years worth of NI contributions and feel I should get at least something in the way of a pension from this in 23 more years time when I reach 68.Who knows, maybe Corbyn will get into power and trucks will drive the streets handing out free cash. A lot can change in the 20+ years
Blaster72 said:
TEKNOPUG said:
What do you think that you have paid into?
I know what you're getting at, there is no growing fund paid into with my NI contributions. I have however already paid 27 years worth of NI contributions and feel I should get at least something in the way of a pension from this in 23 more years time when I reach 68.Who knows, maybe Corbyn will get into power and trucks will drive the streets handing out free cash. A lot can change in the 20+ years
We certainly seem to be growing older demographically as a nation, but is there any evidence that people are remaining fit enough to work any longer, especially in jobs that require physical labour? If not, then we would be simply swapping pensions for disability benefits.
As somebody who managed to develop cancer before the state pension age, I am pleased to be contributing to the "glimmer of hope" that life expectancy is not rising as fast, as I am also that perhaps I may not be troubling all you young people with having to pay for my pension too long.
In the meantime I shall have to content myself with using up the resources of the NHS that my tax contributions over the course of a lifetime helped to build, and reflecting that at least I also shared in providing the schools and universities that educated financial systems advisers and other well paid privileged young people. I suspect it costs more to keep a person in full time education for 16 or 17 years than I will ever draw in State Pensions.
As somebody who managed to develop cancer before the state pension age, I am pleased to be contributing to the "glimmer of hope" that life expectancy is not rising as fast, as I am also that perhaps I may not be troubling all you young people with having to pay for my pension too long.
In the meantime I shall have to content myself with using up the resources of the NHS that my tax contributions over the course of a lifetime helped to build, and reflecting that at least I also shared in providing the schools and universities that educated financial systems advisers and other well paid privileged young people. I suspect it costs more to keep a person in full time education for 16 or 17 years than I will ever draw in State Pensions.
JagLover said:
TEKNOPUG said:
I think it should be completely scrapped. Why should the state fund your retirement? Why should the state make pension contributions to people that clearly don’t need the money? We’ve already established that we haven’t “paid into anything”. .
But we have National insurance is paid for the NHS and to build up an entitlement to the state pension. The fact that this is on a PAYG basis rather than into a fund does not change this fact.
It is fair and reasonable for increases in healthy years spent in retirement to result in an increase in the retirement age. Not to remove people's accrued pension rights.
National Insurance contributions only provide a small part of the funding for the public healthcare systems in the UK.
The whole thing is b
ks.Maybe an insurance clerk can work until 68 but how does a bricky or a plasterers mate.Most of the building trade are physically done by their mid fifties.
If most people do work until 68 what happens to the natural wastage to allow the young to join the jobs market ?
ks.Maybe an insurance clerk can work until 68 but how does a bricky or a plasterers mate.Most of the building trade are physically done by their mid fifties.If most people do work until 68 what happens to the natural wastage to allow the young to join the jobs market ?
TEKNOPUG said:
I agree which is why they should set a date for all those born after say 2000, to no longer pay NI in return for not receiving a state pension.
Who pays for the pensions of the people currently drawing it?That's the problem with the way the state pension is set up - it's difficult to change since you are relying on the NI contributions of those working now - to pay the pensions of those already drawing it.
If the people working and paying NI suddenly stop contribution to the state pension - you have to bridge the funding gap until those people retire and you start to realise the benefits of not having to pay them a state pension. That would be around 50 years based on your proposed date.
Blaster72 said:
TEKNOPUG said:
What do you think that you have paid into?
I know what you're getting at, there is no growing fund paid into with my NI contributions. I have however already paid 27 years worth of NI contributions and feel I should get at least something in the way of a pension from this in 23 more years time when I reach 68.Who knows, maybe Corbyn will get into power and trucks will drive the streets handing out free cash. A lot can change in the 20+ years
Moonhawk said:
TEKNOPUG said:
I agree which is why they should set a date for all those born after say 2000, to no longer pay NI in return for not receiving a state pension.
Who pays for the pensions of the people currently drawing it?That's the problem with the way the state pension is set up - it's difficult to change since you are relying on the NI contributions of those working now - to pay the pensions of those already drawing it.
If the people working and paying NI suddenly stop contribution to the state pension - you have to bridge the funding gap until those people retire and you start to realise the benefits of not having to pay them a state pension. That would be around 50 years based on your proposed date.
smifffymoto said:
The whole thing is bks.Maybe an insurance clerk can work until 68 but how does a bricky or a plasterers mate.Most of the building trade are physically done by their mid fifties.
I would suggest that this also applies to many performing mentally challenging and stressful jobs.ks.Maybe an insurance clerk can work until 68 but how does a bricky or a plasterers mate.Most of the building trade are physically done by their mid fifties.Working part time later in life does not mean doing the same job as you are doing now.
JagLover said:
TEKNOPUG said:
I think it should be completely scrapped. Why should the state fund your retirement? Why should the state make pension contributions to people that clearly don’t need the money? We’ve already established that we haven’t “paid into anything”. .
But we have National insurance is paid for the NHS and to build up an entitlement to the state pension. The fact that this is on a PAYG basis rather than into a fund does not change this fact.
It is fair and reasonable for increases in healthy years spent in retirement to result in an increase in the retirement age. Not to remove people's accrued pension rights.
And if it was removed altogether for, say, those under 25 years old, how would the future pension get paid for those aged over 25?
fblm said:
mcbook said:
I pay 10% and my company match that into a defined contribution scheme. I'm concerned that won't be enough so am starting to create some additional plans.
Company matches 10%? That's excellent, good for you, should be enough for a decent pension. 
As for this change, even though I'm one of the oldest people to be affected by it, so be it. It should've happened years ago.
Personally, I think the government should peg the retirement age at 5 years before average life expectancy, and reset the age every 5 years for people aged between 45-50.
Wobbegong said:
BoRED S2upid said:
I am and I do expect sweet FA. I try and tell my mates this but nobody listens. You've got to do it on your own you can't rely on anything from the government.
Unless you've found a way to play the system or self fund, expect to be working to the day you die.
Annoyingly it's my parents who are the one with their heads in the sand and are adamant there will be a state pension for future generations. They can't understand why I don't factor it in to my calculations so now I just don't bother discussing it with them
Roofless Toothless said:
In the meantime I shall have to content myself with using up the resources of the NHS that my tax contributions over the course of a lifetime helped to build, and reflecting that at least I also shared in providing the schools and universities that educated financial systems advisers and other well paid privileged young people. I suspect it costs more to keep a person in full time education for 16 or 17 years than I will ever draw in State Pensions.
At 65 life expectancy is about 18 years so pension very roughly costs about 120k (value is probably double that though).Education budget per pupil is 5-6k so for 16 years call it 90k.
I dare say you'll get your best value for your money from the NHS though given the cost of drugs.
Best of luck for a speedy remission and I'm sure we all hope you get your moneys worth out of the pension too!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff