Scrapping Age Related Benefits
Discussion
Being a recipient of fuel allowance and a bus pass I would not notice or be at all concerned to see these ‘benifits’ stopped. At the same time I would like to see foreign aid % reduced or at the least managed properly.
It will be a foolish Government to stop pensioner benifits at this time though, just another nail in the Tory/ Labour political party’s. Conversely perhaps get all the nasty stuff done in one hit then build a recovery.
It will be a foolish Government to stop pensioner benifits at this time though, just another nail in the Tory/ Labour political party’s. Conversely perhaps get all the nasty stuff done in one hit then build a recovery.
Kermit power said:
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 f
king 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 pension 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. 
What’s an ‘interest only pension’?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 f
king 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 pension 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. Maybe these things should be tested in another way. It’s not hard to calculate how much a person has contributed in NIC (from both employee and employer) and IT.
Maybe the nation should express its gratitude to those who’ve paid in the most ((and still do on many cases) and at least give them a little back in their old age?
Just joking. As if that’s ever going to happen.........
REALIST123 said:
What’s an ‘interest only pension’?
Maybe these things should be tested in another way. It’s not hard to calculate how much a person has contributed in NIC (from both employee and employer) and IT.
Maybe the nation should express its gratitude to those who’ve paid in the most ((and still do on many cases) and at least give them a little back in their old age?
Just joking. As if that’s ever going to happen.........
The schedule of your contributions is available. You will find it is not a massive sum in comparison the the benefits already received and future state pension entitlement. Maybe these things should be tested in another way. It’s not hard to calculate how much a person has contributed in NIC (from both employee and employer) and IT.
Maybe the nation should express its gratitude to those who’ve paid in the most ((and still do on many cases) and at least give them a little back in their old age?
Just joking. As if that’s ever going to happen.........
Nickgnome said:
REALIST123 said:
What’s an ‘interest only pension’?
Maybe these things should be tested in another way. It’s not hard to calculate how much a person has contributed in NIC (from both employee and employer) and IT.
Maybe the nation should express its gratitude to those who’ve paid in the most ((and still do on many cases) and at least give them a little back in their old age?
Just joking. As if that’s ever going to happen.........
The schedule of your contributions is available. You will find it is not a massive sum in comparison the the benefits already received and future state pension entitlement. Maybe these things should be tested in another way. It’s not hard to calculate how much a person has contributed in NIC (from both employee and employer) and IT.
Maybe the nation should express its gratitude to those who’ve paid in the most ((and still do on many cases) and at least give them a little back in their old age?
Just joking. As if that’s ever going to happen.........
I recently was contacted about a pension I didn't know I had, when I was in my teens, only worked for the company for a few years low wages very small family outfit, didn't remember anything about a pension, turns out even taking it early I still get £150 every three months for life, amazing how money grows when invested.
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.
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.
It's just a complete fiction!!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.
Take a look at these figures from the Joseph Rowntree foundation
Much of this conversation is tainted with a mindset which is twenty or more years out of date. Yes, at that point, pensioners were more likely to be in low income households than working age adults or children, but over those last two decades, the situation has completely reversed. Pensioners are now significantly less likely to be in a low income household than either working age adults or children.
Kermit power said:
It's just a complete fiction!!
Take a look at these figures from the Joseph Rowntree foundation
Much of this conversation is tainted with a mindset which is twenty or more years out of date. Yes, at that point, pensioners were more likely to be in low income households than working age adults or children, but over those last two decades, the situation has completely reversed. Pensioners are now significantly less likely to be in a low income household than either working age adults or children.
Give it time and it will reverse again (heck I doubt I'll make pension age as they keep moving the goal posts) .Take a look at these figures from the Joseph Rowntree foundation
Much of this conversation is tainted with a mindset which is twenty or more years out of date. Yes, at that point, pensioners were more likely to be in low income households than working age adults or children, but over those last two decades, the situation has completely reversed. Pensioners are now significantly less likely to be in a low income household than either working age adults or children.
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
Ah yes. Sorry. You're absolutely right. That'll explain why the government has no debt then.Yes, you paid in.
No, you didn't pay in enough.
Of course, when I say "you", I mean as a generation, not as an individual. It's perfectly possible that you as an individual did pay in enough, but your peers didn't.
REALIST123 said:
Kermit power said:
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 pension 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.
What’s an ‘interest only pension’?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 f
king 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 pension 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. Kermit power said:
Ah yes. Sorry. You're absolutely right. That'll explain why the government has no debt then.
Yes, you paid in.
No, you didn't pay in enough.
Of course, when I say "you", I mean as a generation, not as an individual. It's perfectly possible that you as an individual did pay in enough, but your peers didn't.
There is no pot - that was spent by the Labour government in the 60s and state pensions were instead funded through general taxation. If your private pension pot had a 100% short fall what do you think would happen to the trustees?Yes, you paid in.
No, you didn't pay in enough.
Of course, when I say "you", I mean as a generation, not as an individual. It's perfectly possible that you as an individual did pay in enough, but your peers didn't.
As such to blame the generation for not "paying enough" is nonsense - the government would have just spent any extra paid.
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.
The bus pass had a number of social benefits and not just for the old.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.
As a previous poster explained - you must have missed it - the old might not have access to cars. As they get older, one needs to encourage them to give up driving.
As a previous poser explained - you must have missed it - it keeps many bus routes open. It is a form of subsidy that would probably have to be paid in any case due to deregulation.
It is probable that a previous poster mentioned that these old buggers, whom we seem to want to keep out of the way and stuck in their homes, are a source of income for the high street. Lots of younger people bemoan the closing of shops in the high street but only between buying items on ebay and Amazon.
A few weeks ago I read an article in, I thing, The Times - you must have missed it - which compared the pension and allowance entitlements of UK pensioners with those of our EU neighbours. Perhaps, given the disparity, you should be grateful that the demands of the old and time rich is not more vocal as there is a great deal of evidence they could bring to their demands.
Perhaps it is just that those on the continent are willing to support their old more generously.
Jinx said:
Kermit power said:
Ah yes. Sorry. You're absolutely right. That'll explain why the government has no debt then.
Yes, you paid in.
No, you didn't pay in enough.
Of course, when I say "you", I mean as a generation, not as an individual. It's perfectly possible that you as an individual did pay in enough, but your peers didn't.
There is no pot - that was spent by the Labour government in the 60s and state pensions were instead funded through general taxation. If your private pension pot had a 100% short fall what do you think would happen to the trustees?Yes, you paid in.
No, you didn't pay in enough.
Of course, when I say "you", I mean as a generation, not as an individual. It's perfectly possible that you as an individual did pay in enough, but your peers didn't.
As such to blame the generation for not "paying enough" is nonsense - the government would have just spent any extra paid.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Whilst I understand your point, for those OAPs you know to be faced with a £10k stamp duty bill on selling, the house they're downsizing to would have to be worth £400k, which is not far off double the UK average house price.At the moment, I'm in the South-East. When I retire, I'm planning on relocating to the countryside, and if things stay approximately as they are now for the next decade, I'd be looking at taking out around £250k in capital and be moving in to a nice, mortgage-free house.
How selfish would I have to be, in those circumstances, to think that I'd be more deserving of a break on stamp duty than a working family with kids and a mortgage who are quite possibly having to move for work rather than because they just fancy a nice life in the country which will be made all the more pleasant with the still very significant lump sum left over even after paying that stamp duty?
Almost everything posted in this thread demonstrates why we don't need politicians who - when they havn't either got their hands in the till or their trousers round their ankles - are only interested in how many votes they can bribe the electorate to give them in the next election.
That's no way to enter into a potential 70 or maybe more years bargain between the state and a individual. In a society that's becoming more and more fragmented and self absorbed if there's an expectation that everybody is going to continue being a good little citizen working and paying taxes and behaving themselves then there's got to be something concrete on offer in return.
You need a Statesman with a 100 year plan to promise that and not a self serving member of parliament who can't be trusted not to change his mind or start spouting more bollokx or telling a different lie in the next five minutes whenever it suits .
That's no way to enter into a potential 70 or maybe more years bargain between the state and a individual. In a society that's becoming more and more fragmented and self absorbed if there's an expectation that everybody is going to continue being a good little citizen working and paying taxes and behaving themselves then there's got to be something concrete on offer in return.
You need a Statesman with a 100 year plan to promise that and not a self serving member of parliament who can't be trusted not to change his mind or start spouting more bollokx or telling a different lie in the next five minutes whenever it suits .
Kermit power said:
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.
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.
It's just a complete fiction!!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.
Take a look at these figures from the Joseph Rowntree foundation
Much of this conversation is tainted with a mindset which is twenty or more years out of date. Yes, at that point, pensioners were more likely to be in low income households than working age adults or children, but over those last two decades, the situation has completely reversed. Pensioners are now significantly less likely to be in a low income household than either working age adults or children.
Government eventually recognised this and acted by increasing in real terms the pension. Eventually it reached a point whereby it was deemed a reasonable and affordable sum of money for each pensioner. Now we have the calculation factor changed that will cause an effect of smaller increases and help control the overall public purse expenditure of pensions.
Derek Smith said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
That's a good idea, so won't be taken up by the government. There's another plus; as I downsized a few years ago and, as you say, the tax bill was daunting, it will give me something else to moan about if it is brought in.
Still love to know how the OP's dad is getting £350 a week, or was it £380. I'm struggling to earn that now, at the moment with 3 teens to support.
I'm not jealous though, as I'm 10 years off from state pension age. So I hope he's correct.
Had a quick look on-line and I can't see me getting any more than the state funded pension of around £150 a week.
Council tax benefit is up to your council, winter fuel payout is for anyone born before 1954 and free passports are for anyone born before 1929. A safe bet that those, in either red or blue, won't be ordered in droves
I have paid into a private pension since I was 26 but like many, it has not done well and I'm glad I didn't throw more money into it.
I have a house with decent equity which one day may be split between my ex wife and myself, but the cash released will have to be used to keep me going and get a roof over my head.
It may work if I move to some forgotten corner of the UK, but I will still have to seek employment, maybe in a shop or at a pub.
Shame we don't know the exact time we have left on this planet eh, then I could just splash all the cash now and have a ball if the prognosis is not good
I'm not jealous though, as I'm 10 years off from state pension age. So I hope he's correct.
Had a quick look on-line and I can't see me getting any more than the state funded pension of around £150 a week.
Council tax benefit is up to your council, winter fuel payout is for anyone born before 1954 and free passports are for anyone born before 1929. A safe bet that those, in either red or blue, won't be ordered in droves
I have paid into a private pension since I was 26 but like many, it has not done well and I'm glad I didn't throw more money into it.
I have a house with decent equity which one day may be split between my ex wife and myself, but the cash released will have to be used to keep me going and get a roof over my head.
It may work if I move to some forgotten corner of the UK, but I will still have to seek employment, maybe in a shop or at a pub.
Shame we don't know the exact time we have left on this planet eh, then I could just splash all the cash now and have a ball if the prognosis is not good
PRTVR said:
But if the money had been invested it would have been a considerable amount,
I recently was contacted about a pension I didn't know I had, when I was in my teens, only worked for the company for a few years low wages very small family outfit, didn't remember anything about a pension, turns out even taking it early I still get £150 every three months for life, amazing how money grows when invested.
It does. It should be mandatory for everyone to have a SIPP as soon as they start earning.I recently was contacted about a pension I didn't know I had, when I was in my teens, only worked for the company for a few years low wages very small family outfit, didn't remember anything about a pension, turns out even taking it early I still get £150 every three months for life, amazing how money grows when invested.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff