Discussion
NRS said:
What are you on about? The basic pension is for everyone Nick. You keep arguing we should use a tool which gives extra money to ALL pensioners to help the few left behind. You say you don't need the extra money, but it does take money from those who have far less than you and give it to you and those like you.
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?
So how much does a healthy pensioner require to live? When we have agreed that sum then we can decide if the triple lock can be abolished. Which incidentally I would be happy to accept at that point. 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?
I consider the the current pension is inadequate. I think like many other 'benefit's the system needs an overhaul and do not agree with other top ups like winter fuel etc.
Nickgnome said:
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.
You can be a net contributor but you still get a benefit by a tool that moves wealth from those with less to those with more. You get more of your contributions that you pay back again, so in effect over time you pay a lower tax rate. You're saying you get no benefit from the increases... but you do get the money anyway no matter what you say. You're getting a form of tax break as you're gaining more money back due to the triple lock over time.
Nickgnome said:
So how much does a healthy pensioner require to live? When we have agreed that sum then we can decide if the triple lock can be abolished. Which incidentally I would be happy to accept at that point.
I consider the the current pension is inadequate. I think like many other 'benefit's the system needs an overhaul and do not agree with other top ups like winter fuel etc.
Jesus, yet again how does the triple lock do this? If you feel that the pensioners who are struggling need more you can give them a higher amount - for example a means testing. This would pay the money only to those who need it. Instead you are supporting a tool that gives a pay rise to EVERY pensioner INCLUDING YOU. All the triple lock does is decrease the effective tax rate for ALL pensioners, nothing to do with their living standards etc. It's not targeted at inequality at all - and since pensioners are those with the most wealth it's actually increasing inequality. I consider the the current pension is inadequate. I think like many other 'benefit's the system needs an overhaul and do not agree with other top ups like winter fuel etc.
But you'll just ignore the actual tool and results of triple lock and bang on about poor pensioners living standards, which is not the same at all.
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?
Frankly IMHO state pension should be aligned to the £12.5k / every person over the age of 18 you should receive £12.5k (UBI) enough to exist then you earn / work.
If you don’t need state pension then you can donate it to a local school as they are under funded or a charity
Or actually use it to permanently book cheap Premier Inn rooms and get homeless people to stay there in warmth safety and a decent breakfast.
If you say you don’t need it - don’t give it to charity and spend it on holibobs then evidently you do need it /it’s your lifestyle. If you genuinely didn’t need it you’d be actively giving it to people in need.
Some time ago on PH a thread started by an individual where they were successful but things had gone wrong and their life and families life was turned upside down by debt stress etc. A PH angel then out of their own pocket cleared ALL of that members debt. No caveat of wanting the cash back but rather at some point in the future they may find someone in trouble and hopefully they would help them too.
Or actually use it to permanently book cheap Premier Inn rooms and get homeless people to stay there in warmth safety and a decent breakfast.
If you say you don’t need it - don’t give it to charity and spend it on holibobs then evidently you do need it /it’s your lifestyle. If you genuinely didn’t need it you’d be actively giving it to people in need.
Some time ago on PH a thread started by an individual where they were successful but things had gone wrong and their life and families life was turned upside down by debt stress etc. A PH angel then out of their own pocket cleared ALL of that members debt. No caveat of wanting the cash back but rather at some point in the future they may find someone in trouble and hopefully they would help them too.
The problem with the state pension is that it is pitched as a contributory scheme, to which the recipient is entitled. Hence the view “I’ve paid in so I should get may pension. 60 years ago it was a contributory scheme because people worked until they were 65 and died when they were 70, so the contributions over 45 working years matched the payout. Due to modern medicine, people now live to an average of 82, and a lot of them need a lot of care in their old age. Thus the pensions have effectively become a benefit - the pensioners haven’t actually paid for what they are getting.
What is alarming is the maths behind this. I’ve paid into a private pension all my life - from day 1 on my first job, I’ve whacked an extra 15% into my pension, on top of mandatory and employer contributions. I’ve done well, I’ve got a whacking great pot. But when you turn that into an “income for life, starting at 65”, the amount you get is alarmingly small. It highlights how on a contribution basis, the state pension is staggeringly generous.
What is alarming is the maths behind this. I’ve paid into a private pension all my life - from day 1 on my first job, I’ve whacked an extra 15% into my pension, on top of mandatory and employer contributions. I’ve done well, I’ve got a whacking great pot. But when you turn that into an “income for life, starting at 65”, the amount you get is alarmingly small. It highlights how on a contribution basis, the state pension is staggeringly generous.
rxe said:
What is alarming is the maths behind this. I’ve paid into a private pension all my life - from day 1 on my first job, I’ve whacked an extra 15% into my pension, on top of mandatory and employer contributions. I’ve done well, I’ve got a whacking great pot. But when you turn that into an “income for life, starting at 65”, the amount you get is alarmingly small. It highlights how on a contribution basis, the state pension is staggeringly generous.
A part of that though is the fall in annuity rates since the financial crisis. If we head back into a higher interest rate environment then the state pension won't look so generous in comparison. rxe said:
The problem with the state pension is that it is pitched as a contributory scheme, to which the recipient is entitled. Hence the view “I’ve paid in so I should get may pension. 60 years ago it was a contributory scheme because people worked until they were 65 and died when they were 70, so the contributions over 45 working years matched the payout. Due to modern medicine, people now live to an average of 82, and a lot of them need a lot of care in their old age. Thus the pensions have effectively become a benefit - the pensioners haven’t actually paid for what they are getting.
What is alarming is the maths behind this. I’ve paid into a private pension all my life - from day 1 on my first job, I’ve whacked an extra 15% into my pension, on top of mandatory and employer contributions. I’ve done well, I’ve got a whacking great pot. But when you turn that into an “income for life, starting at 65”, the amount you get is alarmingly small. It highlights how on a contribution basis, the state pension is staggeringly generous.
It's a misconception that the state pension is a pot for our retirement. Unfortunately many think this way, However it is a contract between the state/ government and the individual. It is just as valid and a promise. What is alarming is the maths behind this. I’ve paid into a private pension all my life - from day 1 on my first job, I’ve whacked an extra 15% into my pension, on top of mandatory and employer contributions. I’ve done well, I’ve got a whacking great pot. But when you turn that into an “income for life, starting at 65”, the amount you get is alarmingly small. It highlights how on a contribution basis, the state pension is staggeringly generous.
Our contributions fund today's requirements.
Active management of a personal pension pot can still give good returns but takes knowledge and effort and not without risk.
Nickgnome said:
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.
The triple lock was put in place very recently because pensioners had fallen so far behind.
Nickgnome said:
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.
So you were not so selfish towards your elders but said elders also lived in dire poverty? That’s some major mental gymnastics to deny the fact that the over 60s have vastly more wealth than the under 30s can ever hope too. I fall in to neither group, but can see that my prospects are worse than my parents generation, and that has got worse since. Remember the average private pension pot on retirement is £60-80k. That doesn’t buy much of an annuity.
What this also means is that pensioners pretty much spend all their state pension and then some.
As such instantly the govt is getting back
1. Full council tax
2. 20% VAT
3. Corporation tax wherever they are buying the stuff.
4. Generally they give to charity and help grandkids etc all of whom will spend the money.
The other thing is if state pension was lower then you need to top up as plenty of people wouldn’t be able to exist unless homeless.
What this also means is that pensioners pretty much spend all their state pension and then some.
As such instantly the govt is getting back
1. Full council tax
2. 20% VAT
3. Corporation tax wherever they are buying the stuff.
4. Generally they give to charity and help grandkids etc all of whom will spend the money.
The other thing is if state pension was lower then you need to top up as plenty of people wouldn’t be able to exist unless homeless.
Nickgnome said:
rxe said:
The problem with the state pension is that it is pitched as a contributory scheme, to which the recipient is entitled. Hence the view “I’ve paid in so I should get may pension. 60 years ago it was a contributory scheme because people worked until they were 65 and died when they were 70, so the contributions over 45 working years matched the payout. Due to modern medicine, people now live to an average of 82, and a lot of them need a lot of care in their old age. Thus the pensions have effectively become a benefit - the pensioners haven’t actually paid for what they are getting.
What is alarming is the maths behind this. I’ve paid into a private pension all my life - from day 1 on my first job, I’ve whacked an extra 15% into my pension, on top of mandatory and employer contributions. I’ve done well, I’ve got a whacking great pot. But when you turn that into an “income for life, starting at 65”, the amount you get is alarmingly small. It highlights how on a contribution basis, the state pension is staggeringly generous.
It's a misconception that the state pension is a pot for our retirement. Unfortunately many think this way, However it is a contract between the state/ government and the individual. It is just as valid and a promise. What is alarming is the maths behind this. I’ve paid into a private pension all my life - from day 1 on my first job, I’ve whacked an extra 15% into my pension, on top of mandatory and employer contributions. I’ve done well, I’ve got a whacking great pot. But when you turn that into an “income for life, starting at 65”, the amount you get is alarmingly small. It highlights how on a contribution basis, the state pension is staggeringly generous.
Our contributions fund today's requirements.
Active management of a personal pension pot can still give good returns but takes knowledge and effort and not without risk.
I tend to be of the opinion that the welfare state should be a safety net not a lifestyle choice and that runs to the state pension
There are huge numbers of people in low paid jobs, social housing and with nothing to their name, sometimes through choices they made and more often because they are trapped
We provide them with “free” stuff throughout their lives and including care/nursing home provision .. so a pension seems only right when the stop earning/are not eligible for job seekers/UC etc
For those that can earn enough then there should be a scheme that allows them to fund their own retirement
It is a difficult one though ... I have a occupational pension as does my wife which will be “enough” for us to live comfortably on, if not extravagantly and when the reduced state pensions we will receive kicks in I’m sure it will be nice to have but I won’t need it
But do you punish success and or those that have provided for themselves?
The U.K. pension isn’t especially generous compared to other nations and you can’t just discard people when they can’t work anymore
There are huge numbers of people in low paid jobs, social housing and with nothing to their name, sometimes through choices they made and more often because they are trapped
We provide them with “free” stuff throughout their lives and including care/nursing home provision .. so a pension seems only right when the stop earning/are not eligible for job seekers/UC etc
For those that can earn enough then there should be a scheme that allows them to fund their own retirement
It is a difficult one though ... I have a occupational pension as does my wife which will be “enough” for us to live comfortably on, if not extravagantly and when the reduced state pensions we will receive kicks in I’m sure it will be nice to have but I won’t need it
But do you punish success and or those that have provided for themselves?
The U.K. pension isn’t especially generous compared to other nations and you can’t just discard people when they can’t work anymore
Electro1980 said:
Nickgnome said:
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.
The triple lock was put in place very recently because pensioners had fallen so far behind.
Nickgnome said:
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.
So you were not so selfish towards your elders but said elders also lived in dire poverty? That’s some major mental gymnastics to deny the fact that the over 60s have vastly more wealth than the under 30s can ever hope too. I fall in to neither group, but can see that my prospects are worse than my parents generation, and that has got worse since. The state pension is to ensure that every pensioner has adequate fund to live reasonably. Without top up the current level falls well short of that.
We have in excess of 15M pensioners so 3.75M have no home they own. I'm sure a similar number will live in modest properties many of which will be old and need constant maintenance.
I see many under 30s that are already making great futures for themselves and are likely be much better off than I or my similarly aged friends.
The elderly have little opportunity to change their life.
We are discussing the triple lock protection for the state pension. When that pension becomes truly adequate then the triple lock would not be needed.
Welshbeef said:
Remember the average private pension pot on retirement is £60-80k. That doesn’t buy much of an annuity.
What this also means is that pensioners pretty much spend all their state pension and then some.
As such instantly the govt is getting back
1. Full council tax
2. 20% VAT
3. Corporation tax wherever they are buying the stuff.
4. Generally they give to charity and help grandkids etc all of whom will spend the money.
The other thing is if state pension was lower then you need to top up as plenty of people wouldn’t be able to exist unless homeless.
Maybe the soon-to-be-retired should have bought fewer lattes and avocados on toast and saved more than an 80k pot? What’s good for the goose after all. What this also means is that pensioners pretty much spend all their state pension and then some.
As such instantly the govt is getting back
1. Full council tax
2. 20% VAT
3. Corporation tax wherever they are buying the stuff.
4. Generally they give to charity and help grandkids etc all of whom will spend the money.
The other thing is if state pension was lower then you need to top up as plenty of people wouldn’t be able to exist unless homeless.
The triple lock is indefensible on anything other than nakedly political grounds. But eventually, the working population won’t wear it.
Nickgnome said:
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.
You know first hand because your dad told you about it when he came home from work? Excellent.That's like the doctor's receptionist who think's she's a medical expert.
Jawls said:
Maybe the soon-to-be-retired should have bought fewer lattes and avocados on toast and saved more than an 80k pot? What’s good for the goose after all.
The triple lock is indefensible on anything other than nakedly political grounds. But eventually, the working population won’t wear it.
Triple lock was the method to step up the pension from the woefully low position it was. The triple lock is indefensible on anything other than nakedly political grounds. But eventually, the working population won’t wear it.
Pensioners have no way (in general) to increase their income so inflation needs to be addressed.
Average U.K. wage is £28k
Electro1980 said:
But there is no agreement to provided a particular pension by the state. You seem to be assuming that the state has an obligation to provide a decent standard of living for pensioners. I think everyone should have a decent standard of living, but let’s not get away from the fact that the average pensioner is in a better position than the average working age person and pensioners with nothing more than the state pension are in a better position than those on minimum wage. Working age people subsidising the state pension far more than they ever have. State pensions are the single largest government spending and, at a time when services are being cut left, right and centre, pensions are not only protected but going up, and going up for all.
You have made some assertions that should be backed up. I thought Health was the biggest single government spending. Pensions a bit less then social security.
Are you really saying that an average pensioner gets more than £31,500 pa (median income)? That sounds very high to me.
Worth a read.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
Nickgnome said:
You have made some assertions that should be backed up.
I thought Health was the biggest single government spending. Pensions a bit less then social security.
Are you really saying that an average pensioner gets more than £31,500 pa (median income)? That sounds very high to me.
Worth a read.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
Given average pensioner has a pension pot of £60-80k and very few currently will have the full new £9.8k state pension I’d say most will barely have £10-11k income period. I thought Health was the biggest single government spending. Pensions a bit less then social security.
Are you really saying that an average pensioner gets more than £31,500 pa (median income)? That sounds very high to me.
Worth a read.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
Nickgnome said:
You have made some assertions that should be backed up.
I thought Health was the biggest single government spending. Pensions a bit less then social security.
Are you really saying that an average pensioner gets more than £31,500 pa (median income)? That sounds very high to me.
Worth a read.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
Pension budget 2020 - £138bI thought Health was the biggest single government spending. Pensions a bit less then social security.
Are you really saying that an average pensioner gets more than £31,500 pa (median income)? That sounds very high to me.
Worth a read.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
Healthcare - £126b
Welfare- £117b
Clearly the final figures for the last year will be somewhat different, due to emergency spending on health and welfare for Covid, but this will go in future years and come from cutting health and welfare budgets or increased taxation, which mostly comes from people in work.
And, no, I didn’t say anything about average income, I said better off. Pensioners have lower outgoings and fixed costs than working age population:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38948369
And since then wages have dropped and pensions have increased.
Edited by Electro1980 on Saturday 19th June 12:46
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff