State pension increase - good, bad, indifferent

[TwigtheWonderkid]

GT03ROB said:

It is. You give 40% back if your income exceeds. 50k & 20% back on everything over 12k

If the state pension is, let's say, £10K and you have additional income of £2570, that's £12570, and you give nothing back. If you had an additional income of £3000, the way your post reads, you'd give back 20%, so £2K. But you wouldn't, you'd give back £66.

[S600BSB]

Countdown said:

Bluequay said:

Why should it be means tested? why should people be expected to fund others retirement and then receive nothing themselves just because they have saved an arbitrary amount. We pay national insurance we receive a pension, if you want to break the link then it has to go both ways.

It should be means tested so that taxpayers are only paying for those that really need it, and not for those that have £1m plus pension pots. The issue is that most people don't pay enough NI to cover the cost of providing a State pension. You would need a pot in the region of £200k in order to generate £12k a year and not many people pay £200k in NI over their working lives. That also assumes that ALL of your NI is used to contribute towards your SP and none of it is used to fund other benefits.

The more people who demand that the State gives them money, the more pressure there is to raise taxes.

Agree. Last week's abolition of the pension LTA makes means testing of the SP much more likely IMHO.

[Bluequay]

Countdown said:

Bluequay said:

Why should it be means tested? why should people be expected to fund others retirement and then receive nothing themselves just because they have saved an arbitrary amount. We pay national insurance we receive a pension, if you want to break the link then it has to go both ways.

It should be means tested so that taxpayers are only paying for those that really need it, and not for those that have £1m plus pension pots. The issue is that most people don't pay enough NI to cover the cost of providing a State pension. You would need a pot in the region of £200k in order to generate £12k a year and not many people pay £200k in NI over their working lives. That also assumes that ALL of your NI is used to contribute towards your SP and none of it is used to fund other benefits.

The more people who demand that the State gives them money, the more pressure there is to raise taxes.

Nobody is asking to be given money. They are paying for it, and the average person pays plenty enough to support the pension they receive, it's the usual short term government planning so that it has never been invested that is the problem.

[GT03ROB]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

GT03ROB said:

It is. You give 40% back if your income exceeds. 50k & 20% back on everything over 12k

If the state pension is, let's say, £10K and you have additional income of £2570, that's £12570, and you give nothing back. If you had an additional income of £3000, the way your post reads, you'd give back 20%, so £2K. But you wouldn't, you'd give back £66.

Corrrect Twig. My bad for not being clear.

[GT03ROB]

Countdown said:

It should be means tested so that taxpayers are only paying for those that really need it, and not for those that have £1m plus pension pots. The issue is that most people don't pay enough NI to cover the cost of providing a State pension. You would need a pot in the region of £200k in order to generate £12k a year and not many people pay £200k in NI over their working lives. That also assumes that ALL of your NI is used to contribute towards your SP and none of it is used to fund other benefits.

The more people who demand that the State gives them money, the more pressure there is to raise taxes.

Except of course it was the state who demanded people gave them money in exchange for a pension. Its not the people’s fault various governments have not invested that money to provide the pension.

[Countdown]

Bluequay said:

Countdown said:

Bluequay said:

Why should it be means tested? why should people be expected to fund others retirement and then receive nothing themselves just because they have saved an arbitrary amount. We pay national insurance we receive a pension, if you want to break the link then it has to go both ways.

It should be means tested so that taxpayers are only paying for those that really need it, and not for those that have £1m plus pension pots. The issue is that most people don't pay enough NI to cover the cost of providing a State pension. You would need a pot in the region of £200k in order to generate £12k a year and not many people pay £200k in NI over their working lives. That also assumes that ALL of your NI is used to contribute towards your SP and none of it is used to fund other benefits.

The more people who demand that the State gives them money, the more pressure there is to raise taxes.

Nobody is asking to be given money. They are paying for it, and the average person pays plenty enough to support the pension they receive, it's the usual short term government planning so that it has never been invested that is the problem.

I think they are if they're insisting on money from a scheme which is totally unfunded. The average person doesn't pay enough - if they did it wouldn't be the Ponzi scheme it currently is.

[fat80b]

Countdown said:

It should be means tested so that taxpayers are only paying for those that really need it, and not for those that have £1m plus pension pots. The issue is that most people don't pay enough NI to cover the cost of providing a State pension.

Means testing the state pension would be a major break in the social contract for all of us who do contribute more than their fair share. I can't honestly see a route to means testing state pensions without millions of people (most of whom vote) pushing back hard. Poll tax 2 anyone?

We are already at the point in this country where the haves are expected to fund the have nots in an extraordinary way. We need a serious discussion about whether we want to be a high tax - high spend or a low tax-low spend kinda place to live.

At the moment, we have the worst of everything - record high tax levels, pants services, and an incoming labour governement. Hang on tight, it's gonna be a rough ride!

[Countdown]

GT03ROB said:

Countdown said:

It should be means tested so that taxpayers are only paying for those that really need it, and not for those that have £1m plus pension pots. The issue is that most people don't pay enough NI to cover the cost of providing a State pension. You would need a pot in the region of £200k in order to generate £12k a year and not many people pay £200k in NI over their working lives. That also assumes that ALL of your NI is used to contribute towards your SP and none of it is used to fund other benefits.

The more people who demand that the State gives them money, the more pressure there is to raise taxes.

Except of course it was the state who demanded people gave them money in exchange for a pension. Its not the people’s fault various governments have not invested that money to provide the pension.

The Govt might argue that people were also demanding they spend on Health, education, the Army, and a myriad of other benefits, which prevented them from investing.

[Countdown]

fat80b said:

Countdown said:

It should be means tested so that taxpayers are only paying for those that really need it, and not for those that have £1m plus pension pots. The issue is that most people don't pay enough NI to cover the cost of providing a State pension.

Means testing the state pension would be a major break in the social contract for all of us who do contribute more than their fair share. I can't honestly see a route to means testing state pensions without millions of people (most of whom vote) pushing back hard. Poll tax 2 anyone?

We are already at the point in this country where the haves are expected to fund the have nots in an extraordinary way. We need a serious discussion about whether we want to be a high tax - high spend or a low tax-low spend kinda place to live.

At the moment, we have the worst of everything - record high tax levels, pants services, and an incoming labour governement. Hang on tight, it's gonna be a rough ride!

Funding only the "Have Nots" is going to be cheaper than funding "Everybody". It's absolutely bonkers - people complaining about having to pay more tax but simultaneously more money from the Government.

[SunsetZed]

Countdown said:

fat80b said:

Countdown said:

It should be means tested so that taxpayers are only paying for those that really need it, and not for those that have £1m plus pension pots. The issue is that most people don't pay enough NI to cover the cost of providing a State pension.

Means testing the state pension would be a major break in the social contract for all of us who do contribute more than their fair share. I can't honestly see a route to means testing state pensions without millions of people (most of whom vote) pushing back hard. Poll tax 2 anyone?

We are already at the point in this country where the haves are expected to fund the have nots in an extraordinary way. We need a serious discussion about whether we want to be a high tax - high spend or a low tax-low spend kinda place to live.

At the moment, we have the worst of everything - record high tax levels, pants services, and an incoming labour governement. Hang on tight, it's gonna be a rough ride!

Funding only the "Have Nots" is going to be cheaper than funding "Everybody". It's absolutely bonkers - people complaining about having to pay more tax but simultaneously more money from the Government.

Understood but how much notice would you give people that they wouldn't be getting a state pension, people born before a certain date I assume? It would have to be at least 20 years prior to state pension age to give people a chance to adjust plans I'd have thought and even that feels rough, 40 years would seem fairer.

[GT03ROB]

Countdown said:

GT03ROB said:

Countdown said:

It should be means tested so that taxpayers are only paying for those that really need it, and not for those that have £1m plus pension pots. The issue is that most people don't pay enough NI to cover the cost of providing a State pension. You would need a pot in the region of £200k in order to generate £12k a year and not many people pay £200k in NI over their working lives. That also assumes that ALL of your NI is used to contribute towards your SP and none of it is used to fund other benefits.

The more people who demand that the State gives them money, the more pressure there is to raise taxes.

Except of course it was the state who demanded people gave them money in exchange for a pension. Its not the people’s fault various governments have not invested that money to provide the pension.

The Govt might argue that people were also demanding they spend on Health, education, the Army, and a myriad of other benefits, which prevented them from investing.

No. Various governments have maintained the link between NI & State Pension. The have never suggested NI was to cover education, defence or the like. Now its blindingly obvious they have treated it the same as any other tax. But again whose fault is that?

Don;t forget NI comes from employers as well as employees. Calculate the NI contributions made by employers on behalf of their employees & you may find a lot more of employees have a positive credit when it comes to pensions.

[Earthdweller]

Countdown said:

Bluequay said:

Countdown said:

Bluequay said:

Why should it be means tested? why should people be expected to fund others retirement and then receive nothing themselves just because they have saved an arbitrary amount. We pay national insurance we receive a pension, if you want to break the link then it has to go both ways.

It should be means tested so that taxpayers are only paying for those that really need it, and not for those that have £1m plus pension pots. The issue is that most people don't pay enough NI to cover the cost of providing a State pension. You would need a pot in the region of £200k in order to generate £12k a year and not many people pay £200k in NI over their working lives. That also assumes that ALL of your NI is used to contribute towards your SP and none of it is used to fund other benefits.

The more people who demand that the State gives them money, the more pressure there is to raise taxes.

Nobody is asking to be given money. They are paying for it, and the average person pays plenty enough to support the pension they receive, it's the usual short term government planning so that it has never been invested that is the problem.

I think they are if they're insisting on money from a scheme which is totally unfunded. The average person doesn't pay enough - if they did it wouldn't be the Ponzi scheme it currently is.

Well if Gordon brown ( and others) hadn’t raided pensions and made them far less attractive and beneficial and causing many to close, far less people would have to rely on the state pension.

As it is, it’s just a subsistence level, nothing more really

The real scandal is what the Gov’s have done to private pension provision

[turbobloke]

Countdown said:

GT03ROB said:

Countdown said:

It should be means tested so that taxpayers are only paying for those that really need it, and not for those that have £1m plus pension pots. The issue is that most people don't pay enough NI to cover the cost of providing a State pension. You would need a pot in the region of £200k in order to generate £12k a year and not many people pay £200k in NI over their working lives. That also assumes that ALL of your NI is used to contribute towards your SP and none of it is used to fund other benefits.

The more people who demand that the State gives them money, the more pressure there is to raise taxes.

Except of course it was the state who demanded people gave them money in exchange for a pension. Its not the people’s fault various governments have not invested that money to provide the pension.

The Govt might argue that people were also demanding they spend on Health, education, the Army, and a myriad of other benefits, which prevented them from investing.

Not with the hypothecation around NI which would provide the means to invest aside from such distractions. It's basically gov't dishonesty, not pensioner greed or excessively generous treatment at all.

Edited by turbobloke on Monday 20th March 16:36

[crankedup5]

Some really interesting views posted.
I do recall one of my brothers paid into a private pension through his employer. The employer took the money out of the fund and then promptly went bust, he lost, along with his co-workers his entire pension contribution. This was years ago, I expect those situations could not happen now?

[ATG]

GT03ROB said:

Except of course it was the state who demanded people gave them money in exchange for a pension. Its not the people’s fault various governments have not invested that money to provide the pension.

It's not the people's fault what the government does?? Of course it is. If we collectively vote for governments that offer cake now instead of taking a long term view, of course that's our fault. And in any case, who has to pick up the tab for our inherited situation? We all do. The financial position is what it is. We have to deal with it. As the population ages, workers and the more affluent retirees are going to gave a bigger burden to shoulder. It is inevitable.

[turbobloke]

That assumes there's a difference to vote across.

The gov't now, previous incarnations and future versions won't be honest.

[Countdown]

Earthdweller said:

Well if Gordon brown ( and others) hadn’t raided pensions and made them far less attractive and beneficial and causing many to close, far less people would have to rely on the state pension.

As it is, it’s just a subsistence level, nothing more really

The real scandal is what the Gov’s have done to private pension provision

"Means testing" means that those who genuinely rely on it won't be affected.

[GT03ROB]

crankedup5 said:

Some really interesting views posted.
I do recall one of my brothers paid into a private pension through his employer. The employer took the money out of the fund and then promptly went bust, he lost, along with his co-workers his entire pension contribution. This was years ago, I expect those situations could not happen now?

thats kind of what countdown is proposing the government do……….

[crankedup5]

GT03ROB said:

crankedup5 said:

Some really interesting views posted.
I do recall one of my brothers paid into a private pension through his employer. The employer took the money out of the fund and then promptly went bust, he lost, along with his co-workers his entire pension contribution. This was years ago, I expect those situations could not happen now?

thats kind of what countdown is proposing the government do……….

Back in my brothers day, the pension fund seemed to be under the control of the employer, not sure how they got away with that. Tens of thousands of pounds lost to an unscrupulous employer. Theft is what it was, pure simple theft.

[Countdown]

GT03ROB said:

crankedup5 said:

Some really interesting views posted.
I do recall one of my brothers paid into a private pension through his employer. The employer took the money out of the fund and then promptly went bust, he lost, along with his co-workers his entire pension contribution. This was years ago, I expect those situations could not happen now?

thats kind of what countdown is proposing the government do……….

What happened to Crank5's brother was made illegal/impossible after Maxwell.