Discussion
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.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said...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.
Electro1980 said:
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.
Just over £15k after tax and NI I think on a wage of £17k?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.
Anyone raising kids on minimum wage will also qualify for a load of benefits for housing costs etc. Pensioners won't qualify if they have savings over around £16k.
Free prescriptions kick in at 60
Free bus pass is useful, assuming you live somewhere with a regular bus service within walking distance. Not much use in rural areas.
I still don't see how a basic pensioner is better off financially than a minimum wage earner.
To make it clear, I've made what I think are reasonable provisions for my old age. If I've miscalculated, I'll carry on working for longer. I should be OK with a mix of state and company pension income, which should get me close to a minimum wage income.
There's a lot of people out there in a much worse position, and I don't begrudge them getting an extra fiver a week or whatever it is that the triple lock gives them over and above the normal inflation-linked increase.
Firstly, national minimum wage doing 37.5 hours a week (OSN give an average of 37.2h per week) is £16k, not £17k.
Secondly, what does children have to do with it? Or savings over £16k? All the rest is just an attempt to weasel out of the argument. What does the fact that some people live in rural areas have to do with it? So do many people on minimum wage. Utterly irrelevant to the discussion.
Thirdly, the triple lock gives extra money to every pensioner, who are better off than the working age population and the gap will wide. I do begrudge pensions going up, from working tax, when wages are going down and pensioners are already better off. Why should state pensions continue to rise above wage inflation?
Secondly, what does children have to do with it? Or savings over £16k? All the rest is just an attempt to weasel out of the argument. What does the fact that some people live in rural areas have to do with it? So do many people on minimum wage. Utterly irrelevant to the discussion.
Thirdly, the triple lock gives extra money to every pensioner, who are better off than the working age population and the gap will wide. I do begrudge pensions going up, from working tax, when wages are going down and pensioners are already better off. Why should state pensions continue to rise above wage inflation?
Edited by Electro1980 on Saturday 19th June 19:19
JagLover said:
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.
Electro1980 said:
Firstly, national minimum wage doing 37.5 hours a week (OSN give an average of 37.2h per week) is £16k, not £17k.
Secondly, what does children have to do with it? Or savings over £16k? All the rest is just an attempt to weasel out of the argument. What does the fact that some people live in rural areas have to do with it? So do many people on minimum wage. Utterly irrelevant to the discussion.
Thirdly, the triple lock gives extra money to every pensioner, who are better off than the working age population and the gap will wide. I do begrudge pensions going up, from working tax, when wages are going down and pensioners are already better off. Why should state pensions continue to rise above wage inflation?
OK, a 21 year old doing 37.5 hours at minimum wage will take home £14747pa.Secondly, what does children have to do with it? Or savings over £16k? All the rest is just an attempt to weasel out of the argument. What does the fact that some people live in rural areas have to do with it? So do many people on minimum wage. Utterly irrelevant to the discussion.
Thirdly, the triple lock gives extra money to every pensioner, who are better off than the working age population and the gap will wide. I do begrudge pensions going up, from working tax, when wages are going down and pensioners are already better off. Why should state pensions continue to rise above wage inflation?
Edited by Electro1980 on Saturday 19th June 19:19
A basic pensioner will get £9339pa.
Therefore a minimum wage earner at 21 will get over £100 a week more in their pocket than a basic pensioner.
Having kids at school brings in extra benefits for low earners.
Having over £16k (or whatever the current limit is) in savings means the range of top-up benefits (pension or tax credits) is reduced, often to zero. This matters because several posters have suggested that pensioners can save or downsize to supplement their pensions. By having cash in the bank, state support is reduced. As far as I know, this also applies to working tax credits and such?
Getting a free bus pass when there isn't any chance of actually using it means it isn't a benefit for some pensioners.
I still don't see how you can generalise that pensioners are "already better off". Some are, some aren't.
Electro1980 said:
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.
No one has provided a logical approach for any change apart from saying it’d not fair.
For some reason 2 user names didn’t like the WW1&2 costs which the baby boomers paid for (and we didn’t) rather they strictly wanted to focus on pension. These two also refused to accept the fact we should be paying for covid19 in our working life not our children or grandchildren ….
Cake and eat it.
For some reason 2 user names didn’t like the WW1&2 costs which the baby boomers paid for (and we didn’t) rather they strictly wanted to focus on pension. These two also refused to accept the fact we should be paying for covid19 in our working life not our children or grandchildren ….
Cake and eat it.
crankedup5 said:
Electro1980 said:
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.
clockworks said:
OK, a 21 year old doing 37.5 hours at minimum wage will take home £14747pa.
A basic pensioner will get £9339pa.
Therefore a minimum wage earner at 21 will get over £100 a week more in their pocket than a basic pensioner.
Having kids at school brings in extra benefits for low earners.
Having over £16k (or whatever the current limit is) in savings means the range of top-up benefits (pension or tax credits) is reduced, often to zero. This matters because several posters have suggested that pensioners can save or downsize to supplement their pensions. By having cash in the bank, state support is reduced. As far as I know, this also applies to working tax credits and such?
Getting a free bus pass when there isn't any chance of actually using it means it isn't a benefit for some pensioners.
I still don't see how you can generalise that pensioners are "already better off". Some are, some aren't.
The £16k is irrelevant because someone with that has savings, which means they have more than the minimum.A basic pensioner will get £9339pa.
Therefore a minimum wage earner at 21 will get over £100 a week more in their pocket than a basic pensioner.
Having kids at school brings in extra benefits for low earners.
Having over £16k (or whatever the current limit is) in savings means the range of top-up benefits (pension or tax credits) is reduced, often to zero. This matters because several posters have suggested that pensioners can save or downsize to supplement their pensions. By having cash in the bank, state support is reduced. As far as I know, this also applies to working tax credits and such?
Getting a free bus pass when there isn't any chance of actually using it means it isn't a benefit for some pensioners.
I still don't see how you can generalise that pensioners are "already better off". Some are, some aren't.
Children cost more than the benefits you get.
All of those are irrelevant, as is rural pensioners. Those are all just reasons to add complications to try and muddy the water.
The fact is, working brings extra costs, and being of pensionable age brings a whole raft of additional, none cash, benefits (some of which happen slightly before, some a little after, 65).
But, as I said, this is about the triple lock. Pension credit is what needs to be looked at if there is an issue with low income pensioners.
Welshbeef said:
Electro1980 said:
If someone is getting the minimum pension they will still get the free TV license.
That’s only when older than 75yo though isn’t it so 65-75 Electro1980 said:
The £16k is irrelevant because someone with that has savings, which means they have more than the minimum.
Children cost more than the benefits you get.
All of those are irrelevant, as is rural pensioners. Those are all just reasons to add complications to try and muddy the water.
The fact is, working brings extra costs, and being of pensionable age brings a whole raft of additional, none cash, benefits (some of which happen slightly before, some a little after, 65).
But, as I said, this is about the triple lock. Pension credit is what needs to be looked at if there is an issue with low income pensioners.
Disagree. Children cost more than the benefits you get.
All of those are irrelevant, as is rural pensioners. Those are all just reasons to add complications to try and muddy the water.
The fact is, working brings extra costs, and being of pensionable age brings a whole raft of additional, none cash, benefits (some of which happen slightly before, some a little after, 65).
But, as I said, this is about the triple lock. Pension credit is what needs to be looked at if there is an issue with low income pensioners.
Adding complexity to a universal system is such a waste of time and £.
Let’s aim to get UBI/State pension to £15-20k a year.
Welshbeef said:
Electro1980 said:
The £16k is irrelevant because someone with that has savings, which means they have more than the minimum.
Children cost more than the benefits you get.
All of those are irrelevant, as is rural pensioners. Those are all just reasons to add complications to try and muddy the water.
The fact is, working brings extra costs, and being of pensionable age brings a whole raft of additional, none cash, benefits (some of which happen slightly before, some a little after, 65).
But, as I said, this is about the triple lock. Pension credit is what needs to be looked at if there is an issue with low income pensioners.
Disagree. Children cost more than the benefits you get.
All of those are irrelevant, as is rural pensioners. Those are all just reasons to add complications to try and muddy the water.
The fact is, working brings extra costs, and being of pensionable age brings a whole raft of additional, none cash, benefits (some of which happen slightly before, some a little after, 65).
But, as I said, this is about the triple lock. Pension credit is what needs to be looked at if there is an issue with low income pensioners.
Adding complexity to a universal system is such a waste of time and £.
Let’s aim to get UBI/State pension to £15-20k a year.
Jawls said:
What taxes are you going to increase to deliver this 15-20k per year?
Income tax and VED. Actually I’d probably ditch corporation tax altogether and instead simply have VED /consumption tax instead. Also if we wanted duties you be added to certain things (say that cause disproportionate costs on NHS then that’s what drives the duty)
clockworks said:
Electro1980 said:
Firstly, national minimum wage doing 37.5 hours a week (OSN give an average of 37.2h per week) is £16k, not £17k.
Secondly, what does children have to do with it? Or savings over £16k? All the rest is just an attempt to weasel out of the argument. What does the fact that some people live in rural areas have to do with it? So do many people on minimum wage. Utterly irrelevant to the discussion.
Thirdly, the triple lock gives extra money to every pensioner, who are better off than the working age population and the gap will wide. I do begrudge pensions going up, from working tax, when wages are going down and pensioners are already better off. Why should state pensions continue to rise above wage inflation?
OK, a 21 year old doing 37.5 hours at minimum wage will take home £14747pa.Secondly, what does children have to do with it? Or savings over £16k? All the rest is just an attempt to weasel out of the argument. What does the fact that some people live in rural areas have to do with it? So do many people on minimum wage. Utterly irrelevant to the discussion.
Thirdly, the triple lock gives extra money to every pensioner, who are better off than the working age population and the gap will wide. I do begrudge pensions going up, from working tax, when wages are going down and pensioners are already better off. Why should state pensions continue to rise above wage inflation?
Edited by Electro1980 on Saturday 19th June 19:19
A basic pensioner will get £9339pa.
Therefore a minimum wage earner at 21 will get over £100 a week more in their pocket than a basic pensioner.
Having kids at school brings in extra benefits for low earners.
Having over £16k (or whatever the current limit is) in savings means the range of top-up benefits (pension or tax credits) is reduced, often to zero. This matters because several posters have suggested that pensioners can save or downsize to supplement their pensions. By having cash in the bank, state support is reduced. As far as I know, this also applies to working tax credits and such?
Getting a free bus pass when there isn't any chance of actually using it means it isn't a benefit for some pensioners.
I still don't see how you can generalise that pensioners are "already better off". Some are, some aren't.
Some people keep arguing it's about helping poor pensioners who are barely scraping by, and never address what it does. You could take the money that is given to ALL pensioners (most of whom are some of the most wealthy in society on average) and target it at those poor pensioners struggling to get by. Instead the triple lock gives greater than workers pay rises to all the rich pensioners too.
This thread is about the triple lock, not that some pensioners have it difficult. I find it hard to understand why quite a few are arguing about helping poor pensioners and then at the same time wanting a policy that gives lots of money to the rich ones.
It'd be like saying we're going to give everyone including all the richest people a 5% (made up number for the example) tax break, instead of saying we just give the poor people who need it most a 10% break, as we have a lot more money to spend per person who really needs it.
Biggy Stardust said:
Welshbeef said:
Let’s aim to get UBI/State pension to £15-20k a year.
How in 12 types of buggery is that even remotely affordable?UBI might be possible, but it's not going to be funded by the triple lock, that's for sure!
And I forgot to say before, yes, we can be friends,
NRS said:
Welshbeef likes to make up random stuff - his ideas on numbers of the pension compared to health costs were way out earlier on, and if I remember correctly he's done stuff like make a thread on a supercar he owned for example (which wasn't true). Can't remember the exact details, but it was something weird like that.
UBI might be possible, but it's not going to be funded by the triple lock, that's for sure!
And I forgot to say before, yes, we can be friends,
Are you referring to the scrap 944 and a Mars bar thread over ten years ago? Costing 2 bags of sand (£2k)?UBI might be possible, but it's not going to be funded by the triple lock, that's for sure!
And I forgot to say before, yes, we can be friends,
Struggling to see relevance - but as usual utterly off topic.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff