Discussion
ThatGuyWhoDoesStuff said:
When it takes 3 people to pay the state pension of 1 pensioner, how exactly can they ‘catch up?’
You realise that the nature of the triple lock is that they can NEVER catch up, as one of the locks is against wage growth?
Why do you keep saying ‘start of their earning potential’ as if that somehow means something on it’s own. You’re arguing that pensioners don’t have enough (presumably didn’t catch up to their earning potential), so youngsters have to correct their failures?
The ignorance is astounding.
Of what is he ignorant? Insults are unbecoming.You realise that the nature of the triple lock is that they can NEVER catch up, as one of the locks is against wage growth?
Why do you keep saying ‘start of their earning potential’ as if that somehow means something on it’s own. You’re arguing that pensioners don’t have enough (presumably didn’t catch up to their earning potential), so youngsters have to correct their failures?
The ignorance is astounding.
With no other sources of income could you support yourself for everything on £750/month?
Nickgnome said:
ThatGuyWhoDoesStuff said:
When it takes 3 people to pay the state pension of 1 pensioner, how exactly can they ‘catch up?’
You realise that the nature of the triple lock is that they can NEVER catch up, as one of the locks is against wage growth?
Why do you keep saying ‘start of their earning potential’ as if that somehow means something on it’s own. You’re arguing that pensioners don’t have enough (presumably didn’t catch up to their earning potential), so youngsters have to correct their failures?
The ignorance is astounding.
Of what is he ignorant? Insults are unbecoming.You realise that the nature of the triple lock is that they can NEVER catch up, as one of the locks is against wage growth?
Why do you keep saying ‘start of their earning potential’ as if that somehow means something on it’s own. You’re arguing that pensioners don’t have enough (presumably didn’t catch up to their earning potential), so youngsters have to correct their failures?
The ignorance is astounding.
With no other sources of income could you support yourself for everything on £750/month?
You're still arguing that young people should pay for the older people who are better off to have a better retirement. It's basically like arguing to solve inequality you'll cut the tax on the top earners. You're moving money from those with less to those with more. You're taking money from minimum wage earners and giving it to pensioners like yourself with multiple houses etc.
NRS said:
It's not like that though - 75% of them do have a house, and the others will mostly have other benefits or incomes like additional pensions. And btw, yes, I did before.
You're still arguing that young people should pay for the older people who are better off to have a better retirement. It's basically like arguing to solve inequality you'll cut the tax on the top earners. You're moving money from those with less to those with more. You're taking money from minimum wage earners and giving it to pensioners like yourself with multiple houses etc.
The state pension is not catering for us pensioners that could easily manage without it. it needs to be sufficient for those without any other support. These people are not better off and in the main have no means of supplementing their income. Why do you think the winter supplement was added. A shameful number were dying through lack of adequate heating not many years ago.You're still arguing that young people should pay for the older people who are better off to have a better retirement. It's basically like arguing to solve inequality you'll cut the tax on the top earners. You're moving money from those with less to those with more. You're taking money from minimum wage earners and giving it to pensioners like yourself with multiple houses etc.
Tax can be used to redress the balance for the more affluent. Inheritance tax also.
I'm not sure minimum wage earners pay much tax but in any case I'd raise minimum wage as well.
My Dad, a pilot, left the RAF after the war and went into welfare services, now called social services so I know first hand the plight of many pensioners which for those at that end has not improved much since i was a kid.
The triple lock was put in place very recently because pensioners had fallen so far behind. This is not about baby boomers with big houses. That is a complete red herring.
The over-all tax take now is probably very little different than when I was a 20 something but I do know we were not so selfish in outlook toward our elders. Maybe because we felt a sense of duty as the war was still a very close part of our history.
As I final point i am atypical and have said before was bankrupt in the early 90s so the baby boomer thing is irrelevant to my situation. I worked abroad for a few years away from the family to get back on my feet then carried out a number of self bids and a very intensive career. If you can cope with the idea of zero holidays or maybe 2 one week breaks per annum but always contactable and 60hr min per week that is how i got where I am. On the plus side i loved it.
Nickgnome said:
NRS said:
It's not like that though - 75% of them do have a house, and the others will mostly have other benefits or incomes like additional pensions. And btw, yes, I did before.
You're still arguing that young people should pay for the older people who are better off to have a better retirement. It's basically like arguing to solve inequality you'll cut the tax on the top earners. You're moving money from those with less to those with more. You're taking money from minimum wage earners and giving it to pensioners like yourself with multiple houses etc.
The state pension is not catering for us pensioners that could easily manage without it. it needs to be sufficient for those without any other support. These people are not better off and in the main have no means of supplementing their income. Why do you think the winter supplement was added. A shameful number were dying through lack of adequate heating not many years ago.You're still arguing that young people should pay for the older people who are better off to have a better retirement. It's basically like arguing to solve inequality you'll cut the tax on the top earners. You're moving money from those with less to those with more. You're taking money from minimum wage earners and giving it to pensioners like yourself with multiple houses etc.
Tax can be used to redress the balance for the more affluent. Inheritance tax also.
I'm not sure minimum wage earners pay much tax but in any case I'd raise minimum wage as well.
My Dad, a pilot, left the RAF after the war and went into welfare services, now called social services so I know first hand the plight of many pensioners which for those at that end has not improved much since i was a kid.
The triple lock was put in place very recently because pensioners had fallen so far behind. This is not about baby boomers with big houses. That is a complete red herring.
The over-all tax take now is probably very little different than when I was a 20 something but I do know we were not so selfish in outlook toward our elders. Maybe because we felt a sense of duty as the war was still a very close part of our history.
As I final point i am atypical and have said before was bankrupt in the early 90s so the baby boomer thing is irrelevant to my situation. I worked abroad for a few years away from the family to get back on my feet then carried out a number of self bids and a very intensive career. If you can cope with the idea of zero holidays or maybe 2 one week breaks per annum but always contactable and 60hr min per week that is how i got where I am. On the plus side i loved it.
If you gave the minimum wage a 10% boost to reduce inequality then you don't need the triple lock as a pension linked to wages will also go up 10%. So the triple part is really not needed to do what you argue. Instead as mentioned it is a tool that moves money to the oldest, who are also the wealthiest part of society (75% own a house etc). The state pension being given to some who don't need it is a different issue to the triple lock, and doing something there could be a much better of way of targeting those who are struggling that you talk about, instead of a tool pays out to the 75% of house owners.
Nickgnome said:
Now you have reiterated the blindingly obvious do you have a point to make?
As a pensioner with no home of your own, no savings and no other sources of income, how much would you need to live?
Thats what care comes are for.As a pensioner with no home of your own, no savings and no other sources of income, how much would you need to live?
Edited by Nickgnome on Friday 18th June 23:40
Yes, are you enjoying your riches paid for by and at the expense of todays youth?
Mr Spoon said:
Nickgnome said:
Now you have reiterated the blindingly obvious do you have a point to make?
As a pensioner with no home of your own, no savings and no other sources of income, how much would you need to live?
Thats what care comes are for.As a pensioner with no home of your own, no savings and no other sources of income, how much would you need to live?
Nickgnome said:
soofsayer said:
Nickgnome said:
I do not know if it is my perception of history but I think through my late teens and twenties we were very engaged politically. this was 60's and 70's
Really?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomers
What point are you trying to make?
You are a baby boomer, it is fact that your generation are very politically engaged and have had policy shaped for your benefit. You posted ‘your perception’ was that your generation were politically active, I posted the link explaining what a boomer is. Is it that hard to follow?
Mr Spoon said:
Nickgnome said:
Now you have reiterated the blindingly obvious do you have a point to make?
As a pensioner with no home of your own, no savings and no other sources of income, how much would you need to live?
Thats what care comes are for.As a pensioner with no home of your own, no savings and no other sources of income, how much would you need to live?
Edited by Nickgnome on Friday 18th June 23:40
Yes, are you enjoying your riches paid for by and at the expense of todays youth?
I am taxed so more is clawed back than i receive. Therefore i am still a significant net contributor into the state pot.
Welshbeef said:
Glosphil said:
The UK state pension is around 60% of the minimum wage and one of the lowest in Europe. Many countries have state pensions that are more than 60% of the average wage in their countries.
And they start many years earlier than U.K. Edited by NRS on Saturday 19th June 09:26
soofsayer said:
Not ‘trying’ anything, but if I have to spell it out…
You are a baby boomer, it is fact that your generation are very politically engaged and have had policy shaped for your benefit. You posted ‘your perception’ was that your generation were politically active, I posted the link explaining what a boomer is. Is it that hard to follow?
I am well aware that by accident of birth i am a boomer. There is little i can do about that. You are a baby boomer, it is fact that your generation are very politically engaged and have had policy shaped for your benefit. You posted ‘your perception’ was that your generation were politically active, I posted the link explaining what a boomer is. Is it that hard to follow?
If political parties saw much more engagement from younger generations they would be obliged to cater more for their needs or face the consequences of being voted out.
soofsayer said:
Quite. Today’s new pensioners may be receiving a state pension for nearly as long as they have worked. It has got well out of hand. Nothing will change significantly for a long time, until at least the boomer demographic have shuffled off and the working demographic can take back political influence.
I’m 20 years away from a state pension (although the goal posts will probably keep moving further away), was told by my economics tutor at school 20 years ago that there wouldn’t be a state pension by the time I retired, so I already have a good sized private pension (no thanks to hmg closing down the contribution allowances), any state pension will be a top up for the holiday fund.
The whole point of the welfare state and taxation is to redistribute wealth fairly. Giving a state pension to everyone regardless of need does not meet those terms, and only serves to spread the money more thinly than necessary, the poor stay poor, the rich get a free holiday, car, etc each year. There is nothing fair about that. Saying it’s unworkable to means test pensioners is laughable, it’s not difficult, afterall millions of working age families have to be means tested all the time to receive any benefits, so why not the older generations?
The means testing is already there it’s the income tax bands. I’m 20 years away from a state pension (although the goal posts will probably keep moving further away), was told by my economics tutor at school 20 years ago that there wouldn’t be a state pension by the time I retired, so I already have a good sized private pension (no thanks to hmg closing down the contribution allowances), any state pension will be a top up for the holiday fund.
The whole point of the welfare state and taxation is to redistribute wealth fairly. Giving a state pension to everyone regardless of need does not meet those terms, and only serves to spread the money more thinly than necessary, the poor stay poor, the rich get a free holiday, car, etc each year. There is nothing fair about that. Saying it’s unworkable to means test pensioners is laughable, it’s not difficult, afterall millions of working age families have to be means tested all the time to receive any benefits, so why not the older generations?
JagLover said:
Mr Spoon said:
Nickgnome said:
Now you have reiterated the blindingly obvious do you have a point to make?
As a pensioner with no home of your own, no savings and no other sources of income, how much would you need to live?
Thats what care comes are for.As a pensioner with no home of your own, no savings and no other sources of income, how much would you need to live?
So please do not duck the question. How much to live independently?
Nickgnome said:
Why should a healthy pensioner be forced to live in sheltered accommodation? This type of accommodation is aimed at pensioners that need some support but not full on care.
So please do not duck the question. How much to live independently?
You've ducked my question to you. How does a tool that is designed to give money to the richest group in society fixing that? No one is saying to leave the old people to starve to death. They question why we should pay more to a group that has the most wealth, when there is far better tools to target those small number in that group who have been left behind. So please do not duck the question. How much to live independently?
Nickgnome said:
soofsayer said:
Not ‘trying’ anything, but if I have to spell it out…
You are a baby boomer, it is fact that your generation are very politically engaged and have had policy shaped for your benefit. You posted ‘your perception’ was that your generation were politically active, I posted the link explaining what a boomer is. Is it that hard to follow?
I am well aware that by accident of birth i am a boomer. There is little i can do about that. You are a baby boomer, it is fact that your generation are very politically engaged and have had policy shaped for your benefit. You posted ‘your perception’ was that your generation were politically active, I posted the link explaining what a boomer is. Is it that hard to follow?
If political parties saw much more engagement from younger generations they would be obliged to cater more for their needs or face the consequences of being voted out.
NRS said:
Do they have the same 75% home ownership though?
The people to which the basic pension is aimed are in the main in the 25% who have no home ownership.Of the 75% what would you like to happen. Should they be forced to sell?
What percentage live in very modest small houses that would realise little.
Are you suggesting that every person be forced to sell their main asset in retirement and use the funds to pay for their retirement and care costs?
Care home costs are about £600 per week on average and nursing homes are well over £800 and are self funded for anyone over about £24K of assets.
NRS said:
Nickgnome said:
Why should a healthy pensioner be forced to live in sheltered accommodation? This type of accommodation is aimed at pensioners that need some support but not full on care.
So please do not duck the question. How much to live independently?
You've ducked my question to you. How does a tool that is designed to give money to the richest group in society fixing that? No one is saying to leave the old people to starve to death. They question why we should pay more to a group that has the most wealth, when there is far better tools to target those small number in that group who have been left behind. So please do not duck the question. How much to live independently?
The tax system is more than adequate to claw back from us that have other sources of income.
Many of us are still significant net contributors and even higher rate tax payers, so in reality derive no benefit from the state pension and are still helping support those less fortunate.
Nickgnome said:
NRS said:
Do they have the same 75% home ownership though?
The people to which the basic pension is aimed are in the main in the 25% who have no home ownership.Of the 75% what would you like to happen. Should they be forced to sell?
What percentage live in very modest small houses that would realise little.
Are you suggesting that every person be forced to sell their main asset in retirement and use the funds to pay for their retirement and care costs?
Care home costs are about £600 per week on average and nursing homes are well over £800 and are self funded for anyone over about £24K of assets.
The 75% is nothing to do with having to sell. It's clear that home ownership will massively decrease living costs since rent/mortgage is by far the biggest cost to most people. Since that is paid off you can survive on far less. Instead you want the triple lock which will move money from those with less to those who have more.
And where are you off to now? How does the triple lock impact care homes?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff