Discussion
NRS said:
How could it possibly be a livable income given the tiny amount they were paying in? And even if it is an issue then why should the problem be thrown onto the kids who already are in a worse situation in life when comparing like with like financially, plus will have a far shorter paid retirement?
It's amazing how the dialogue is that millenials are entitled, yet we're just hearing here "it's not out fault, put the cost onto the kids". The same kids who have also to deal with a s
t load of extra debt and lost earnings to save those very same boomers. It's crazy how blind many are to this.
How much they actually paid in is not the point. It was the state that sold the story that by paying NI they would get a livable pension.It's amazing how the dialogue is that millenials are entitled, yet we're just hearing here "it's not out fault, put the cost onto the kids". The same kids who have also to deal with a s
t load of extra debt and lost earnings to save those very same boomers. It's crazy how blind many are to this. If you are saying you are only entitled to get out what you put in where do you draw the line?
Are private pensions not the same, you put in a certain amount but hope that you get more out of it than you put in?
Welshbeef said:
Baby boomers will die - as you say they are wealthy.
This wealth will be passed into their kids generation x / or millennials. Don’t you get that?
Sure some will not but 75% will.
The argument that pensioners should take more money from younger generations, so that when they die they MIGHT pay it back to a now 60 year old person, contends for the most ridiculous thing I’ve read on this site. This wealth will be passed into their kids generation x / or millennials. Don’t you get that?
Sure some will not but 75% will.
ThatGuyWhoDoesStuff said:
Welshbeef said:
Baby boomers will die - as you say they are wealthy.
This wealth will be passed into their kids generation x / or millennials. Don’t you get that?
Sure some will not but 75% will.
The argument that pensioners should take more money from younger generations, so that when they die they MIGHT pay it back to a now 60 year old person, contends for the most ridiculous thing I’ve read on this site. This wealth will be passed into their kids generation x / or millennials. Don’t you get that?
Sure some will not but 75% will.
Drumroll said:
Electro1980 said:
So what you are saying is we should continue to increase pensions faster than wages because some people failed to plan? And you justify this by saying that younger people can keep living with parents or shared housing and work long hours. Why can’t pensioners get a job or moved in to shared housing if their situation is so dire, having had a lifetime to save and plan?
Sorry but I don't agree it is to easy to say people should have planned for their retirement. Many people who are now collecting their pension where led to believe that the state pension would provide a livable income. Added to that all the company pensions that for various reasons failed to deliver an actual pension. Then you have those who for various reasons won't get a full state pension in any case.To try and blame current pensioners is just too simplistic.
So what if company pensions failed to deliver? They delivered far more than company pensions will now. My pension over the last 20 years has gone from a 1/60th final salary, paying in 8% to a 1/85th career revalued paying in 13%. And my taxes are going to pay for an ever increasing state pension whilst my income falls in real terms, and I’m one of the luck ones who hasn’t had a pay cut and still has some form of DB pension.
The argument was that the young have time to plan. So your saying one generation didn’t plan, so the next should pay for it?
ThatGuyWhoDoesStuff said:
Welshbeef said:
So how do you think the baby boomers felt about paying back the Marshall plan debt to USA for WW2 throughout their working lives when there were not even conceived when it happened ?
Well at least you’ve pushed your previous post into ‘second most ridiculous.’You seem evidently more than happy for many future generations to pay for covid rather than us but there you go. However the marginal difference annual pension would be relative to that oh no big problem.
State pension police deference education is universal and must remain universal. If you wish to give your state pension away OR instruct your own parents /grand parents to do so if they can survive on their own then please instruct them. Else your preaching a point but not willing to live that yourself.
Welshbeef said:
I suspect you are 40-46 yo
You seem evidently more than happy for many future generations to pay for covid rather than us but there you go. However the marginal difference annual pension would be relative to that oh no big problem.
State pension police deference education is universal and must remain universal. If you wish to give your state pension away OR instruct your own parents /grand parents to do so if they can survive on their own then please instruct them. Else your preaching a point but not willing to live that yourself.
Pretty much wrong on all fronts. You seem evidently more than happy for many future generations to pay for covid rather than us but there you go. However the marginal difference annual pension would be relative to that oh no big problem.
State pension police deference education is universal and must remain universal. If you wish to give your state pension away OR instruct your own parents /grand parents to do so if they can survive on their own then please instruct them. Else your preaching a point but not willing to live that yourself.
ThatGuyWhoDoesStuff said:
Pretty much wrong on all fronts.
Can you explain you position - what you think it should look like and how a transition would happen & over what time frame. Plus as with any change there will be winners and losers in the change can you highlight who falls into each bracket. Electro1980 said:
And when was the state pension a liveable amount? When were people promised this?
So what if company pensions failed to deliver? They delivered far more than company pensions will now. My pension over the last 20 years has gone from a 1/60th final salary, paying in 8% to a 1/85th career revalued paying in 13%. And my taxes are going to pay for an ever increasing state pension whilst my income falls in real terms, and I’m one of the luck ones who hasn’t had a pay cut and still has some form of DB pension.
The argument was that the young have time to plan. So your saying one generation didn’t plan, so the next should pay for it?
Agree.So what if company pensions failed to deliver? They delivered far more than company pensions will now. My pension over the last 20 years has gone from a 1/60th final salary, paying in 8% to a 1/85th career revalued paying in 13%. And my taxes are going to pay for an ever increasing state pension whilst my income falls in real terms, and I’m one of the luck ones who hasn’t had a pay cut and still has some form of DB pension.
The argument was that the young have time to plan. So your saying one generation didn’t plan, so the next should pay for it?
It's amazing where I live, Large estate, big mix of large and small houses. Quite noticeable the number of large houses obviously occupied by pensioners - some of them on their own, whilst families are crammed into the smaller ones.
The thought that these younger people with huge mortgages, kids, childcare, student debts, no company pension etc should be paying for a retired person who's had a more generally easy ride (in some cases retired since they were 55) is ludicrous.
Even if they've worked to 65, the government pension has never been overly generous, so it's hardly a surprise for someone who's had the chance to save up at least a little in the preceding 45 years.
NRS said:
Not so much of it, as lots will be used up on care homes, given the crazy costs of those. And it will just increase inequality for those next generation. The studies are pretty clear that despite the wealth that will be inherited then then next generations will be worse off. Instead people are arguing that all boomers should get better wage increases than the workers behind them. If you want a better pension then retire later and more in line with the expected death age. The money will go a lot further. That's already been "forced" upon the next generations - and was normal in the past too. It's the current lot that are the anomaly. It's not too surprising that it's hard to fund a pension for them when:
a) they will have a far longer pension time than those before or after
b) they have a big population bubble, so there is less workers to pay for their pension.
c) they contributed nothing to their pensions apparently, so are barely scraping by on tuppence, and even the 75% who own their own homes are apparently struggling too according to some (and they are more important than the larger group below them who don't own a home).
Get what you put in is not a viable argument, I mean it would be great for me given tax bill but its just not equitable that you could be CEO and get a huge payout, an shop floor an barely survive. a) they will have a far longer pension time than those before or after
b) they have a big population bubble, so there is less workers to pay for their pension.
c) they contributed nothing to their pensions apparently, so are barely scraping by on tuppence, and even the 75% who own their own homes are apparently struggling too according to some (and they are more important than the larger group below them who don't own a home).
But again pensions can't go on forever and yet there is no plan to change it. I think the basic plan of all governments involves a can and some kicking. I suspect 20 years from now we will be having the same debate.
What smart grand parents - who as you say “don’t need it” could pay into their grand children’s pension from when they are born. I think they can pay in c£3k and get tax relief even though they don’t earn anything.
That would remove the need for state support to a larger proportion of the future population.
That would remove the need for state support to a larger proportion of the future population.
Electro1980 said:
So what you are saying is we should continue to increase pensions faster than wages because some people failed to plan? And you justify this by saying that younger people can keep living with parents or shared housing and work long hours. Why can’t pensioners get a job or moved in to shared housing if their situation is so dire, having had a lifetime to save and plan?
I notice that you didn't answer my question about your previous statement, and then put words into my mouth.I'll answer your last question with another question though - if all the hard-up pensioners went and got jobs, how would the young people earn a living? Pretty sure a large percentage of employers would rather take on a reasonably fit pensioner than an 18 year old. I've done minimum wage jobs, and it's generally the youngsters and mothers with school-age kids who phone in sick or just don't turn up.
Welshbeef said:
ThatGuyWhoDoesStuff said:
Welshbeef said:
Baby boomers will die - as you say they are wealthy.
This wealth will be passed into their kids generation x / or millennials. Don’t you get that?
Sure some will not but 75% will.
The argument that pensioners should take more money from younger generations, so that when they die they MIGHT pay it back to a now 60 year old person, contends for the most ridiculous thing I’ve read on this site. This wealth will be passed into their kids generation x / or millennials. Don’t you get that?
Sure some will not but 75% will.
Welshbeef said:
I suspect you are 40-46 yo
You seem evidently more than happy for many future generations to pay for covid rather than us but there you go. However the marginal difference annual pension would be relative to that oh no big problem.
State pension police deference education is universal and must remain universal. If you wish to give your state pension away OR instruct your own parents /grand parents to do so if they can survive on their own then please instruct them. Else your preaching a point but not willing to live that yourself.
1) WW2 debt and Covid are nothing to do with the triple lock pension.You seem evidently more than happy for many future generations to pay for covid rather than us but there you go. However the marginal difference annual pension would be relative to that oh no big problem.
State pension police deference education is universal and must remain universal. If you wish to give your state pension away OR instruct your own parents /grand parents to do so if they can survive on their own then please instruct them. Else your preaching a point but not willing to live that yourself.
2) the reason we are having this discussion is because the government are wanting to keep the triple lock when the economy has been hit so hard. If you want to bring the Covid debt in to it, surely the fact that pensions go up so fast should be looked at. After all pensioners have been almost completely isolated from the economic damage whilst being the main beneficiaries of the Covid restrictions, given that people in the pensioners age group have been vastly more at risk (being 90% of deaths and hospitalisations). Compared to WW2, where most of the benefits of a free world were felt by future generations.
Electro1980 said:
1) WW2 debt and Covid are nothing to do with the triple lock pension.
2) the reason we are having this discussion is because the government are wanting to keep the triple lock when the economy has been hit so hard. If you want to bring the Covid debt in to it, surely the fact that pensions go up so fast should be looked at. After all pensioners have been almost completely isolated from the economic damage whilst being the main beneficiaries of the Covid restrictions, given that people in the pensioners age group have been vastly more at risk (being 90% of deaths and hospitalisations). Compared to WW2, where most of the benefits of a free world were felt by future generations.
C130,000 pensioners have died with covid over and above normal death rate/excess deaths. 2) the reason we are having this discussion is because the government are wanting to keep the triple lock when the economy has been hit so hard. If you want to bring the Covid debt in to it, surely the fact that pensions go up so fast should be looked at. After all pensioners have been almost completely isolated from the economic damage whilst being the main beneficiaries of the Covid restrictions, given that people in the pensioners age group have been vastly more at risk (being 90% of deaths and hospitalisations). Compared to WW2, where most of the benefits of a free world were felt by future generations.
So 130,000 x £9,800 (assumed state pension) = £1.3billion a year saving from the state.
IMHO state pension in the U.K. is too low and relative to other nations starts far later.
IMhO we should have UBI which everyone gets and it replaces pension. Find that job done.
Gecko1978 said:
Get what you put in is not a viable argument, I mean it would be great for me given tax bill but its just not equitable that you could be CEO and get a huge payout, an shop floor an barely survive.
But again pensions can't go on forever and yet there is no plan to change it. I think the basic plan of all governments involves a can and some kicking. I suspect 20 years from now we will be having the same debate.
What we really need to do is actually have a funded state pension. So we start now pay more in so one bit goes specifically into our own funds and the rest has to fund on a cash basis the legacy bit. If we creep this up over decades /generations we will get there. But again pensions can't go on forever and yet there is no plan to change it. I think the basic plan of all governments involves a can and some kicking. I suspect 20 years from now we will be having the same debate.
But there is a no option to opt out of state pension.
clockworks said:
I notice that you didn't answer my question about your previous statement, and then put words into my mouth.
No I didn’t, because our answered it yourself with the comment about rent and owning a house. But to answer your question, pensioners also get:Housing and council tax benefits at a higher income
No/very low travel costs (free bus pass, no commuting, concessions on public transport)
Winter fuel allowance
Free TV licence
Free prescriptions
Also, after tax minimum wage on normal working hours works out at £14k, not £17k, assuming they can work full time.
I’m not begrudging anyone those benefits, your argument doesn’t add up when you take everything in to account.
lrdisco said:
Utter crap. My son is in his last year of studying A level Maths, Further Maths and Physics in a top UK 100 grammar school and there is no lack of dedication in his group but they will never recover the year they lost.
Are you a unionised teacher who has had a full 16 months off in reality.
If you had taken the trouble to read my first post, you will have seen that I am retired. Yes, I was a teacher, which is where my extensive experience of the resilience of MOST young people comes from. OK, for the last 25 years,I didn’t work in a top 100 grammar school, as I preferred to work in an environment where the pupils were less entitled. Before you get on your high horse about that, the grammar schools I have worked in, both fee paying, had a high proportion of pupils who thought they were guaranteed a great set of exam results, irrespective of their individual effort or ability, solely because Mummy and Daddy had shelled out thousands on their education. Give me an inner city comprehensive school any time!Are you a unionised teacher who has had a full 16 months off in reality.
When I was teaching, I was indeed the school union rep. I am extremely proud of the help and assistance I managed to give to my former colleagues. I am also proud of the help and advice I gave to a succession of headteachers, which helped the school to run smoothly and avoid potential issues.
Finally, it is no wonder that your son is struggling if his teachers have had the last 16 months off.
My former colleagues, my partner and most of the teachers I know have been working their tripes out all through the pandemic. Not only did they have to do “normal” lessons at school for the children of key workers/vulnerable children, but they also had to then prepare and deliver live lessons, on-line, to pupils not attending school, plus marking work and checking progress of all pupils.
All of the things I have said are based on my personal experience, if people don’t like it, fine. Everyone has a right to an opinion, nobody else is being forced to agree with it. If people don’t like my opinion on the triple lock, well that’s OK, I won’t lose any sleep over it, but it won’t change my opinion.
Welshbeef said:
C130,000 pensioners have died with covid over and above normal death rate/excess deaths.
So 130,000 x £9,800 (assumed state pension) = £1.3billion a year saving from the state.
IMHO state pension in the U.K. is too low and relative to other nations starts far later.
IMhO we should have UBI which everyone gets and it replaces pension. Find that job done.
Well £1.3 billion a year should clear the £400bn of debt racked up in no time. So 130,000 x £9,800 (assumed state pension) = £1.3billion a year saving from the state.
IMHO state pension in the U.K. is too low and relative to other nations starts far later.
IMhO we should have UBI which everyone gets and it replaces pension. Find that job done.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff