Scrapping Age Related Benefits

[PRTVR]

Kermit power said:

PorkRind said:

Gecko1978 said:

you pay into the system today and in return are looked after later. While costs go up so have wages an thus tax paid. OP's dad is entitled to it and has contributed to society and now society is looking after him. The 17 year old lad on the bus route is able to work and travel (he will find it costly like we all did at the start).

So no lets stop messing about with pensions

The most sensible post yet.

No, it really isn't, as it takes no account of whether the OP's father paid in enough.

All the original calculations around payment towards state benefits in old age were based on people living around 5 years in retirement. It's now close to 20, but contributions haven't gone up by even a fraction of that.

Go and ask a Ferrari dealer if you can pay £100 per month for the next 20 years, then rock up and collect your shiny new car "because you've paid for it".

In comparison to somebody who lives their life on benefits and paid nothing into the system they should get the full amount,
we will also pay if they require to go into a care home, great system penalize people who work hard and save,.

[menousername]

Perhaps there is an argument for means testing but that should apply across the board not just for the elderly.

But we need to stop this divide and conquer. One minute we are hating on the unemployed, the next its the disabled and questioning whether they are truly unfit to work, then it was old ladies with a spare room who we thought should move home even though there was nowhere for them to go, now its the elderly and whether they should receive enough state pension to put the heating on in the winter?!

Come on. We need to start holding the correct people to account and stop allowing these diversions and deceptions. We have had decades of mismanagement of the economy and pretty much every aspect of public services that we pay a not insignificant amount of tax for.

We should have run a tighter ship and that would have involved difficult decisions the kinds of which are regularly bashed on here because we do not want them, see ref. brexit thread, house price thread etc. We needed better leadership with the talent to navigate these challenges and set the country up for long term stability.

On the subject of pensions, something that concerns me greatly, people rely on the state pension because they have spent most of their lives with little or no disposable income from which to save, due to the high level of tax take and the increasing cost of living, esp. housing. If It is not working it is up to the Government and public sector to find a way of delivering public services for significantly less cost, thus reducing the tax burden and allowing people to save for retirement.

[Toaster]

Nickgnome said:

Jaguar steve said:

This absolutely will not do.

I started work in the mid 70's doing 60 hours a week in the school holidays washing up and clearing tables and cooking fish and chips in a seaside cafe for 25p an hour. Since then I've been continuously working and paying tax and national insurance and contributing to UK PLC through spending and paying VAT and excise duty and rates and council tax.

Approaching retirement it's now payback time for all the countless hours and hundreds of thousands of pounds I've contributed and the Grubberment fkucks with the deal that I've grafted to keep my side of the bargain for the last forty years at their peril. They've already knobbed me for about £15k by delaying my stare pension start date by eighteen months from 65 to 67 and a half and that's a step too far without being screwed for anything else I've worked for all those years as well.

Forking Cunch of two faced Bunts .

Sounds like you are a very similar age to me. How much NHI have you paid in. They will send you a statement. It’s a pretty piffling amount.

Your work cv at that age is very little different to mine. Supermarket, chip shop, petrol station and car parts factory and night shift working. It’s just what we did. I do not expect special treatment because of it.

I have a completely different attitude and do not believe I should be supported by the state. Our free health care is more than reasonable.

Jaguar Steve is right, we have paid in to a welfare state, when retirement age comes you are entitled to a pension. The notion that pensioners are scrounges or not entitled is a dangerous road to travel down. Most people retiring do not have a huge work pension their standard of living is going to be hit. Many will still have interest only mortgages there will be those renting. We want a civil society we also want people not to be in poverty. A mate of mine through his life has been divorced twice lost three houses and will be renting he will have £155 per week to live on. He paid in to the system and this is what he will get back.

Many of those with company pensions paid in to those schemes with a company making a contribution they were not “free” those individuals have saved twice during their work life once in the national government scheme and once in a private pension so to all you fkers who think those people have something for nothing think again and wake up to the fact the current pension scheme both the Stamp you pay and the pension you contribute to is your money.

I never had kids I don’t care my tax pays for others schooling I don’t care that my tax pays for those unfortunate who are out of work or cannot work due to illness I want to live in a fair and equitable society. The comments about the old and their benefits is to be frank disgusting. They have worked contributed to your society enabled factories transport health education and other systems in their retirement some of you mean bds think that age should be punishable. fk off....if you are 65 the chance is you have worked since you were 15 or 16 so unlike most of the young today who may start real work post uni.

[Dixy]

This thread has migrated from age related benefits to the state pension. The addons were guberments pandering to a vocal and time rich demographic.
So I go back to my question how do you justify free bus travel for someone who has had plenty of time to provide for themselves and yet force a sixteen year old to pay for transport to go somewhere they are mandated to attend.

[Kermit power]

PRTVR said:

Kermit power said:

PorkRind said:

Gecko1978 said:

you pay into the system today and in return are looked after later. While costs go up so have wages an thus tax paid. OP's dad is entitled to it and has contributed to society and now society is looking after him. The 17 year old lad on the bus route is able to work and travel (he will find it costly like we all did at the start).

So no lets stop messing about with pensions

The most sensible post yet.

No, it really isn't, as it takes no account of whether the OP's father paid in enough.

All the original calculations around payment towards state benefits in old age were based on people living around 5 years in retirement. It's now close to 20, but contributions haven't gone up by even a fraction of that.

Go and ask a Ferrari dealer if you can pay £100 per month for the next 20 years, then rock up and collect your shiny new car "because you've paid for it".

In comparison to somebody who lives their life on benefits and paid nothing into the system they should get the full amount,
we will also pay if they require to go into a care home, great system penalize people who work hard and save,.

I don't disagree that they are more deserving than those who have contributed nothing, but that doesn't change the fact that the older generations didn't pay in enough to warrant what they're taking out.

My choice to answer the question of the less deserving would be to say that nobody of working age (bar the disabled who truly can't work) gets any sort of benefit for not working until they've paid in for at least 2 years, and then after that, you'd be entitled to claim no more than 6 months in any 3 year period.

That should ensure that more is paid in by each generation, and as such retirement benefits become more affordable.

Having said that, I would also allow people to claim that out of work benefit at the same level as their average earnings for the previous 3 years. Why is it fair that those who contribute most when they're in work are most let down when it comes to having to pay mortgages and the like if they find themselves out of work through no fault of their own?

[Toaster]

Dixy said:

This thread has migrated from age related benefits to the state pension. The addons were guberments pandering to a vocal and time rich demographic.
So I go back to my question how do you justify free bus travel for someone who has had plenty of time to provide for themselves and yet force a sixteen year old to pay for transport to go somewhere they are mandated to attend.

Poor babies “forced “to pay for transport ahem walk or cycle or pay that’s exactly what I did at 16 and at that age 35% of my wage went on Transport, I did that so I could be an apprentice the. 30% went to my parents given I also had to pay for my own tools so are today’s 16 year olds worse off....probably not.

[Burwood]

Kermit power said:

PRTVR said:

Kermit power said:

PorkRind said:

Gecko1978 said:

you pay into the system today and in return are looked after later. While costs go up so have wages an thus tax paid. OP's dad is entitled to it and has contributed to society and now society is looking after him. The 17 year old lad on the bus route is able to work and travel (he will find it costly like we all did at the start).

So no lets stop messing about with pensions

The most sensible post yet.

No, it really isn't, as it takes no account of whether the OP's father paid in enough.

All the original calculations around payment towards state benefits in old age were based on people living around 5 years in retirement. It's now close to 20, but contributions haven't gone up by even a fraction of that.

Go and ask a Ferrari dealer if you can pay £100 per month for the next 20 years, then rock up and collect your shiny new car "because you've paid for it".

In comparison to somebody who lives their life on benefits and paid nothing into the system they should get the full amount,
we will also pay if they require to go into a care home, great system penalize people who work hard and save,.

I don't disagree that they are more deserving than those who have contributed nothing, but that doesn't change the fact that the older generations didn't pay in enough to warrant what they're taking out.

My choice to answer the question of the less deserving would be to say that nobody of working age (bar the disabled who truly can't work) gets any sort of benefit for not working until they've paid in for at least 2 years, and then after that, you'd be entitled to claim no more than 6 months in any 3 year period.

That should ensure that more is paid in by each generation, and as such retirement benefits become more affordable.

Having said that, I would also allow people to claim that out of work benefit at the same level as their average earnings for the previous 3 years. Why is it fair that those who contribute most when they're in work are most let down when it comes to having to pay mortgages and the like if they find themselves out of work through no fault of their own?

What you say is only fair and reasonable however it won't ever happen because of the Social unrest/crime and poverty which will be the fallout from such a policy. Plus, attacking pensioners is an election loser. Won't happen. Just pointless was of time by some working group. Akin to the group who came up with the idea to make our Naval ships gender neutral.

[tobinen]

The heating allowance grinds my gears. All the blokes I drink with down the local just use it to buy foreign currency for holidays.

It should be means-tested. Most recipients don't need it.

[Toaster]

tobinen said:

The heating allowance grinds my gears. All the blokes I drink with down the local just use it to buy foreign currency for holidays.

It should be means-tested. Most recipients don't need it.

In all seriousness I can’t disagree if someone has very limited or no funds than the benefits should go to those that need it at 16 or whatever age, however means testing would probably cost more than re-distributing the benefits. It’s not easy O don’t think there is an easy answer but if you do get a benefit and do not need it I hope the individuals will make a charitable donation to a care home or to a youth project.

[BoRED S2upid]

Nickgnome said:

BoRED S2upid said:

Count yourself lucky you will be getting a state pension even at 67. I’m not banking on it being around when I get that old our retirement planning doesn’t take it into account they will have moved it to 77 by then!

Why not plan for no state pension. Why should the state provide for you?

That’s what I said we are not factoring state pension into our retirement plans many our age aren’t.

[Toaster]

Burwood said:

Kermit power said:

PRTVR said:

Kermit power said:

PorkRind said:

Gecko1978 said:

you pay into the system today and in return are looked after later. While costs go up so have wages an thus tax paid. OP's dad is entitled to it and has contributed to society and now society is looking after him. The 17 year old lad on the bus route is able to work and travel (he will find it costly like we all did at the start).

So no lets stop messing about with pensions

The most sensible post yet.

No, it really isn't, as it takes no account of whether the OP's father paid in enough.

All the original calculations around payment towards state benefits in old age were based on people living around 5 years in retirement. It's now close to 20, but contributions haven't gone up by even a fraction of that.

Go and ask a Ferrari dealer if you can pay £100 per month for the next 20 years, then rock up and collect your shiny new car "because you've paid for it".

In comparison to somebody who lives their life on benefits and paid nothing into the system they should get the full amount,
we will also pay if they require to go into a care home, great system penalize people who work hard and save,.

I don't disagree that they are more deserving than those who have contributed nothing, but that doesn't change the fact that the older generations didn't pay in enough to warrant what they're taking out.

My choice to answer the question of the less deserving would be to say that nobody of working age (bar the disabled who truly can't work) gets any sort of benefit for not working until they've paid in for at least 2 years, and then after that, you'd be entitled to claim no more than 6 months in any 3 year period.

That should ensure that more is paid in by each generation, and as such retirement benefits become more affordable.

Having said that, I would also allow people to claim that out of work benefit at the same level as their average earnings for the previous 3 years. Why is it fair that those who contribute most when they're in work are most let down when it comes to having to pay mortgages and the like if they find themselves out of work through no fault of their own?

What you say is only fair and reasonable however it won't ever happen because of the Social unrest/crime and poverty which will be the fallout from such a policy. Plus, attacking pensioners is an election loser. Won't happen. Just pointless was of time by some working group. Akin to the group who came up with the idea to make our Naval ships gender neutral.

just a thought on what we pay in, are you really saying the government doesn’t invest the money we pay them which means those funds make money over the years. So are more much more than the contributions we made

[Zigster]

The Basic State Pension should be a welfare benefit like any other. Its role should be to provide for those who, for whatever reason, are unable to provide for themselves.

Current State pensions are paid for by current National Insurance Contributions. The NICs you pay don’t go into some hypothecated pot marked for your retirement pension. Your NICs are not your personal “National Savings Contributions”.

There are problems with making the BSP means-tested: the public has developed an expectation over the last 100 years that they are entitled to it, and there is a moral hazard in making it means-tested. But the Government has means-tested other previously universal benefits (such as child allowance) so I don’t see why means-testing the BSP shouldn’t be open to debate.

[Kermit power]

Toaster said:

Nickgnome said:

Jaguar steve said:

This absolutely will not do.

I started work in the mid 70's doing 60 hours a week in the school holidays washing up and clearing tables and cooking fish and chips in a seaside cafe for 25p an hour. Since then I've been continuously working and paying tax and national insurance and contributing to UK PLC through spending and paying VAT and excise duty and rates and council tax.

Approaching retirement it's now payback time for all the countless hours and hundreds of thousands of pounds I've contributed and the Grubberment fkucks with the deal that I've grafted to keep my side of the bargain for the last forty years at their peril. They've already knobbed me for about £15k by delaying my stare pension start date by eighteen months from 65 to 67 and a half and that's a step too far without being screwed for anything else I've worked for all those years as well.

Forking Cunch of two faced Bunts .

Sounds like you are a very similar age to me. How much NHI have you paid in. They will send you a statement. It’s a pretty piffling amount.

Your work cv at that age is very little different to mine. Supermarket, chip shop, petrol station and car parts factory and night shift working. It’s just what we did. I do not expect special treatment because of it.

I have a completely different attitude and do not believe I should be supported by the state. Our free health care is more than reasonable.

Jaguar Steve is right, we have paid in to a welfare state, when retirement age comes you are entitled to a pension. The notion that pensioners are scrounges or not entitled is a dangerous road to travel down. Most people retiring do not have a huge work pension their standard of living is going to be hit. Many will still have interest only mortgages there will be those renting. We want a civil society we also want people not to be in poverty. A mate of mine through his life has been divorced twice lost three houses and will be renting he will have £155 per week to live on. He paid in to the system and this is what he will get back.

Many of those with company pensions paid in to those schemes with a company making a contribution they were not “free” those individuals have saved twice during their work life once in the national government scheme and once in a private pension so to all you fkers who think those people have something for nothing think again and wake up to the fact the current pension scheme both the Stamp you pay and the pension you contribute to is your money.

I never had kids I don’t care my tax pays for others schooling I don’t care that my tax pays for those unfortunate who are out of work or cannot work due to illness I want to live in a fair and equitable society. The comments about the old and their benefits is to be frank disgusting. They have worked contributed to your society enabled factories transport health education and other systems in their retirement some of you mean bds think that age should be punishable. fk off....if you are 65 the chance is you have worked since you were 15 or 16 so unlike most of the young today who may start real work post uni.

You are missing the point.

Nobody is denying that you paid in what you were asked to pay, but you didn't pay enough for what you're expecting to take out. That's not your fault, but it's still a fact.

Would you expect to get something you've not paid for in any other walk of life?

Two of my grandparents lived in to their nineties, and another to 88. My wife still has two grandparents alive now, both in their nineties. Both the others also lived well into their eighties.

They all paid in during their working lifetimes as well, but they paid in to a system initially set up when average life expectancy was below 70, and people were expected to do the decent thing and die off after 3-4 years of retirement. The system was never set up around people living to over 80 on average, and the increase in the level of contributions required to account for that and still keep a retirement age of 60/65 just never happened.

That was a generation born in the 1910s & 20s, so it could be considered that both our families did happen to have very lucky genes. For the baby boomer generation, however, that's much closer to the norm, yet still the contributions never went up in line with the expected payouts.

You're angry because you've been told your entire working life that you're contributing what's required to look after you in old age and now you see it as potentially being threatened. That's perfectly understandable, and unless you were personally setting policy in the Treasury, it's hardly your fault that you didn't pay in enough, but surely you can also understand the anger of younger generations who are being asked to actually foot the bill for this whilst seeing their own retirement age pushed further in to the future, their benefits reduced, and the multiple of their salary required to actually buy a home at many, many times what you faced.

The one part of your post which is absolutely fking absurd, though, is the thought that anyone should have any sympathy whatsoever for people still paying interest only mortgages in retirement!!! If they chose to take out an interest only mortgage without setting up an alternative financial instrument to pay off the capital, then tough st, they deserve everything they get. They either find the money to keep paying the interest, or they sell their house and by something smaller with the equity. The notion that the younger generations should be providing them with enough of a pension to keep paying mortgage interest just because they chose to live beyond their means and spunk the cash up the wall on flash cars and nice holidays rather than showing a bit of financial responsibility like the rest of us is just reprehensible.

Edited by Kermit power on Friday 26th April 11:02

[Welshbeef]

Bus pass TV licence and winter fuel allowance should now simply be rolled into a higher state pension value job done. The higher earners they will pay marginally higher income tax.

Conversely there will be countless OAPs who simply cannot handle £ so will not buy a TV licence nor pay for he bus and become isolated at home worrying and lonely.

These people are people’s parents mainly who in their right mind would want OAPs to suffer?
If they have plenty well give them a nudge to give the winter fuel allowance to grandkids or simply to charity OR pay it in additional donation to the local council tax.

[Parsnip]

Welshbeef said:

Bus pass TV licence and winter fuel allowance should now simply be rolled into a higher state pension value job done. The higher earners they will pay marginally higher income tax.

Simplify the system, remove layers of admin and cost, fair for all.

It will never happen.

[Jinx]

Parsnip said:

Simplify the system, remove layers of admin and cost, fair for all.

It will never happen.

Scrap the TV licence - everyone wins.....

[Dixy]

Toaster said:

Poor babies “forced “to pay for transport ahem walk or cycle or pay that’s exactly what I did at 16 and at that age 35% of my wage went on Transport, I did that so I could be an apprentice the. 30% went to my parents given I also had to pay for my own tools so are today’s 16 year olds worse off....probably not.

The sixth form college has a catchment are of 600 square miles going on to Exmore, average journey is 15 miles, they get no wages so would happily pay 50% of zero, they are required to attend by law. Things have changed since you lived in a shoe box.
What parts are you finding so hard to understand, it is no wonder our generation get labelled gammon, so many are greedy pigs.

[Nickgnome]

Toaster said:

just a thought on what we pay in, are you really saying the government doesn’t invest the money we pay them which means those funds make money over the years. So are more much more than the contributions we made

NI contributions do not go into any investment fund. The monies are used as current account spending on health services and pension benefits of those entitled to receive pensions at the time you pay NHI. As I stated previously you can get a schedule of your contributions over the years.

The agreement is that providing you have contributed for a minimum number of years then you will be entitled to a state pension.

In my view this is unsustainable in its current form going forward. Surely we should all save for our own pension pot and choosing not to is just negligent. There are even tax benefits for personal pension contributions.

Back onto the OPs original post. The age related benefits should be scrapped immediately as they do not form part of the original NHI intention.

[CoolHands]

Dixy said:

Toaster said:

Poor babies “forced “to pay for transport ahem walk or cycle or pay that’s exactly what I did at 16 and at that age 35% of my wage went on Transport, I did that so I could be an apprentice the. 30% went to my parents given I also had to pay for my own tools so are today’s 16 year olds worse off....probably not.

The sixth form college has a catchment are of 600 square miles going on to Exmore, average journey is 15 miles, they get no wages so would happily pay 50% of zero, they are required to attend by law. Things have changed since you lived in a shoe box.
What parts are you finding so hard to understand, it is no wonder our generation get labelled gammon, so many are greedy pigs.

How is he a greedy pig when he has just demonstrated how he went through hardship while young in order to look ahead and get trained, a job, and pay into the system for the next 50 years?

And everyone saying it should be means tested well once again the reliable folk who work for 50 years will then Not get it, (as they will pay into private pensions etc) and the feckless will once again get taken care of (and have more babies to continue the system)

[CoolHands]

Also, who says we can’t afford it? We can, it’s a choice. IMO we should stop pouring money into the NHS.