Scrapping Age Related Benefits
Discussion
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 17 year old is required by law to attend further education, nothing was said about pensions.So no lets stop messing about with pensions
Apparently ageism is the one area of inequality that will virtually never be eliminated.
These poor old sods, being accused of selfishness over Brexit and ruining the futures of the young and now having to give them their money.
Personally nothing points to sense of entitlement of 'Millennials' more than these examples, a generation who have 'Never had it so good'.
These poor old sods, being accused of selfishness over Brexit and ruining the futures of the young and now having to give them their money.
Personally nothing points to sense of entitlement of 'Millennials' more than these examples, a generation who have 'Never had it so good'.
croyde said:
I actually saw the OPs comment about his dad getting £350 or so a week as hope for me and others in our middle age.
I've worked since I was 17 and have now in my late 50s an okish portfolio of ISAS and a pretty poor pension pot.
Work is drying up and I still have 3 teens and an ex wife to support.
Retirement is looking pretty grim unless I fek off to some remote part of the UK now and leave my responsibilities behind.
We should have the Scandinavian system here where we pay high taxes knowing that we'll be OK when old and/or ill.
OP, is the amount your dad gets his old age pension and the various benefits like housing, travel, subsidised council tax etc?
Looking after my wife's Godfather going back a few years he was getting around £350/wk - IIRC about £50 from an occupational pension, then state pension, pension credit and Attendance Allowance (I think the AA was around £70/wk). He owned his house but his council tax was 100% covered (not in that £350/wk figure).I've worked since I was 17 and have now in my late 50s an okish portfolio of ISAS and a pretty poor pension pot.
Work is drying up and I still have 3 teens and an ex wife to support.
Retirement is looking pretty grim unless I fek off to some remote part of the UK now and leave my responsibilities behind.
We should have the Scandinavian system here where we pay high taxes knowing that we'll be OK when old and/or ill.
OP, is the amount your dad gets his old age pension and the various benefits like housing, travel, subsidised council tax etc?
Derek Smith mentioned complicated forms earlier - his council had a Welfare Rights Officer and she took care of all that sort of stuff. She sorted the AA out and I think the pension credit, as well as various mods done to his house at no cost.
I suppose it depends what sort of life you have - he didn't do much so apart from bills and a bit of food, he didn't really have any other expenditure, so the biggest issue was finding things he could spend his money on. Even so I was a bit concered his savings should have effected his pension credit (you read of families being hit with hefty bills on death) but apparently he had a lifetime assessment so it didn't matter.
hutchst said:
Why is it either/or? Divide and rule has always been a good tactic when you start to lose control.
exactly it was the same with Brexit. Thick people voted leave Educated people Voted remain. Young people are hard done by old people are on easy street. A measure of how good a society we are is how we treat old people just pulling the rug from under them is really a nasty piece of thinking. Dixy said:
The 17 year old is required by law to attend further education, nothing was said about pensions.
Seems an unfair gap between 16 and 18 or so.My daughter failed her A levels so is retaking them this year. She's now 19 and although out of school is still revising/taking exams yet she/we pay full fare on transport/cinema/prescriptions etc until she officially, fingers crossed, gets to university and becomes a student again.
Dixy 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 17 year old is required by law to attend further education, nothing was said about pensions.So no lets stop messing about with pensions
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
Except the cost rise of bus fares is way beyond inflation (and even further beyond wage inflation).So no lets stop messing about with pensions
Education or training at 17 is now compulsory so he has to attend.
Further education establishments are far fewer than they used to be, as they combine into larger establishments for efficiency. So you have to travel further.
And even if he was working, he wouldn't be entitled to the minimum wage, or the living wage but would be expected to pay tax
jfire said:
Apparently ageism is the one area of inequality that will virtually never be eliminated.
These poor old sods, being accused of selfishness over Brexit and ruining the futures of the young and now having to give them their money.
Personally nothing points to sense of entitlement of 'Millennials' more than these examples, a generation who have 'Never had it so good'.
Be fair, there are pros and cons for all generations. These poor old sods, being accused of selfishness over Brexit and ruining the futures of the young and now having to give them their money.
Personally nothing points to sense of entitlement of 'Millennials' more than these examples, a generation who have 'Never had it so good'.
Older generations did pay their way but perhaps they were promised more than is affordable. Current generations are paying in are probably not going to get a state pension, the ponzi scheme will collapse at some point.
DB have been phased out for DC for the same reason, paying more for less.
Remember when a family could be fed, educated and go on holiday on one salary?
When houses were affordable on the average salary, access to education for the poor was not in decline and the wealth divide was smaller?
Not to mention the increased monitoring and control we have exchanged for convenience.
There are plenty of things that have changed but it's not all good, incidentally I am too old to be a millennial.
Tannedbaldhead said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48046595
Read this article this morning and thought they have a point.
My 81 year old Dad was complaining at how badly the lump sum he derives his income drawdown was performing. So as to maintain its value he has decided not to take any income this year.
I was worried about how he'd manage till he dug out his pension paperwork and showed me his old age, care related and contribution based pensions amounted to £354 per week. That's not a kick in the arse off £18500 a year.
On top of that my Mum receives old age pensions and a teacher's superannuated pension.
They have no mortgage and no dependants.
This being the case why all the free stuff?
Am I going all socialist for thinking age related benifits should be means tested and the savings should be channelled into either in work benifits or increased tax allowance to help much poorer young working families?
No, but you've forgotten that your parents are much more likely to vote in a General Election than the 'young working families' you refer to.Read this article this morning and thought they have a point.
My 81 year old Dad was complaining at how badly the lump sum he derives his income drawdown was performing. So as to maintain its value he has decided not to take any income this year.
I was worried about how he'd manage till he dug out his pension paperwork and showed me his old age, care related and contribution based pensions amounted to £354 per week. That's not a kick in the arse off £18500 a year.
On top of that my Mum receives old age pensions and a teacher's superannuated pension.
They have no mortgage and no dependants.
This being the case why all the free stuff?
Am I going all socialist for thinking age related benifits should be means tested and the savings should be channelled into either in work benifits or increased tax allowance to help much poorer young working families?
So who do you think will get better benefits?
I've no idea how the benefits system works but I know what I see with my own eyes.
We have a 'halfway house' near us. Those who live there don't work but they have enough money for their drug dealer to turn up every day, have a dog, a smart phone and they get private hire cabs at 10pm. Always in new trainers and have tattoo's....Not sure how they afford all of that when people who work full time can't....
We have a 'halfway house' near us. Those who live there don't work but they have enough money for their drug dealer to turn up every day, have a dog, a smart phone and they get private hire cabs at 10pm. Always in new trainers and have tattoo's....Not sure how they afford all of that when people who work full time can't....
TaylotS2K said:
I've no idea how the benefits system works but I know what I see with my own eyes.
We have a 'halfway house' near us. Those who live there don't work but they have enough money for their drug dealer to turn up every day, have a dog, a smart phone and they get private hire cabs at 10pm. Always in new trainers and have tattoo's....Not sure how they afford all of that when people who work full time can't....
That's not benefits but probably more likely 'benefits'We have a 'halfway house' near us. Those who live there don't work but they have enough money for their drug dealer to turn up every day, have a dog, a smart phone and they get private hire cabs at 10pm. Always in new trainers and have tattoo's....Not sure how they afford all of that when people who work full time can't....
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
State Pensions account for a very sizeable portion of UK expenditure; £96.7 billion last year - roughly twice that spent on Defence.So no lets stop messing about with pensions
Nearly 13 million people are eligible for the state pension, and due to population demographics, this number is only going to rise in the years to come.
Of all social security benefits, 55% are paid to the elderly.
This isn't including the free TV license.
On top of all that, elderly people are also the biggest burden on the NHS, for obvious reasons on how age impacts ones health.
Elderly people must be looked after, but it must not come at the expense of educating children, defending the nation, and investing in the future. The balance needs adjusting.
Ed. said:
Be fair, there are pros and cons for all generations.
Older generations did pay their way but perhaps they were promised more than is affordable. Current generations are paying in are probably not going to get a state pension, the ponzi scheme will collapse at some point.
DB have been phased out for DC for the same reason, paying more for less.
Remember when a family could be fed, educated and go on holiday on one salary?
When houses were affordable on the average salary, access to education for the poor was not in decline and the wealth divide was smaller?
Not to mention the increased monitoring and control we have exchanged for convenience.
There are plenty of things that have changed but it's not all good, incidentally I am too old to be a millennial.
The above situation didn't happen for long - it definitely only existed for one maybe two generations at most (in the UK at least - slightly better times for longer in the USA but then they didn't have to pay back all the money borrowed for fighting a second war in Europe) . My parents could have had it good (that they didn't was more the choices they made than the opportunities available) but their parents definitely didn't have it particularly good.Older generations did pay their way but perhaps they were promised more than is affordable. Current generations are paying in are probably not going to get a state pension, the ponzi scheme will collapse at some point.
DB have been phased out for DC for the same reason, paying more for less.
Remember when a family could be fed, educated and go on holiday on one salary?
When houses were affordable on the average salary, access to education for the poor was not in decline and the wealth divide was smaller?
Not to mention the increased monitoring and control we have exchanged for convenience.
There are plenty of things that have changed but it's not all good, incidentally I am too old to be a millennial.
The state pension used to be funded but due to a certain Government's decision (I'll let you guess the colour of the rosettes) this fund was spent and pensions paid out of general taxation - why is there no desire from political parties to build a fund up again? (well the obvious reason is because a subsequent government would just spend it but there could by blocks put in to stop this happening - maybe require a referendum...... if we could ever trust governments to enact the results again) .
Old duffers in the HOL that are comfortably off wanting to show they are down with the kids and do bit of youngster virtue signalling should be ignored IMHO.
Means test these age related benefits, higher rate tax payer and you don't get them, simple joined up govt, something we don't do well if at all.
Or do all the oldies have such good "tax efficient" schemes in place so that no state pensionable age person pays higher rate income tax?
As usual its the one size fits all approach that is wrong, at both ends of the age range, that means those that really need the help will lose out to stop "helping" those that don't need help.
Wingo.
Means test these age related benefits, higher rate tax payer and you don't get them, simple joined up govt, something we don't do well if at all.
Or do all the oldies have such good "tax efficient" schemes in place so that no state pensionable age person pays higher rate income tax?
As usual its the one size fits all approach that is wrong, at both ends of the age range, that means those that really need the help will lose out to stop "helping" those that don't need help.
Wingo.
Wingo said:
Old duffers in the HOL that are comfortably off wanting to show they are down with the kids and do bit of youngster virtue signalling should be ignored IMHO.
Means test these age related benefits, higher rate tax payer and you don't get them, simple joined up govt, something we don't do well if at all.
Or do all the oldies have such good "tax efficient" schemes in place so that no state pensionable age person pays higher rate income tax?
As usual its the one size fits all approach that is wrong, at both ends of the age range, that means those that really need the help will lose out to stop "helping" those that don't need help.
Wingo.
Means testing costs a fortune. Frequently cheaper to just blanket benefit (think winter fuel allowance) . Means test these age related benefits, higher rate tax payer and you don't get them, simple joined up govt, something we don't do well if at all.
Or do all the oldies have such good "tax efficient" schemes in place so that no state pensionable age person pays higher rate income tax?
As usual its the one size fits all approach that is wrong, at both ends of the age range, that means those that really need the help will lose out to stop "helping" those that don't need help.
Wingo.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff