State pension increase - good, bad, indifferent
Discussion
Blue62 said:
Biggy Stardust said:
Up to 50 years of poor life choices can be a real bugger.
Indeed, what to do with those people who make poor life choices, it’s all their own fault so maybe euthanise them? It would mean a bit more for those of us who made good life choices. Blue62 said:
You appear to be pretty sure of your ground, so what would you do with all these people not bothering to work and having children they can't afford? Do we invest in educating their offspring so that we have a chance to break the cycle, or let them all starve to death?
I do wonder about the numbers though, are they a biggest drain on our limited resources?
I commented that if the pensioners haven't made any provision for their old age then they can hardly complain when their life isn't as luxurious as they might wish.I do wonder about the numbers though, are they a biggest drain on our limited resources?
I made no comment on kids' education, although I consider it to be a good investment in those who make use of it.
Dynion Araf Uchaf said:
sugerbear said:
Considering only a few months back there wasn't anything available to nurses/doctors/train drivers etc it seems there really is a magic money tree.
pensioners vote tory. A disproportionate amount of voters are pensioners.Money is found if it helps keep you in power.
The nurses would have got their pay rise if they promised to vote tory in future.
10.1‰ extra on the state pension is around £1,000 per year so equivalent to less than 3% on the average wage. The rises in petrol, food & energy costs are just the same for us.
I think state pension should not be means tested. It shouldn’t be subject of triple lock either.
Why not mean test the NHS? Your house worth a lot in your retirement? Move to a bedsit to pay for that cancer treatment… slippery slope this means testing. State pension is already means testing as is.
We need more people at work so everyone pays less tax. Sometimes it feels you are penalised because you work. The harder you work the less you get from the state.
Why not mean test the NHS? Your house worth a lot in your retirement? Move to a bedsit to pay for that cancer treatment… slippery slope this means testing. State pension is already means testing as is.
We need more people at work so everyone pays less tax. Sometimes it feels you are penalised because you work. The harder you work the less you get from the state.
Countdown said:
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……….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?
People have paid into the state pension for years. The state has used the money for other things, is now in financial trouble & you propose the state doesn't pay out.
Your proposal is little different from what Maxwell did.
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.
The employer is also paying in as well. On a median salary total NI paid will be around £6K. Times by 35, say, to take account of times not working/on less hours and that would be over the £200K you mention. The more people who demand that the State gives them money, the more pressure there is to raise taxes.
Many will be paying in a lot more, many a lot less, but the full time worker in the middle is paying over £200K, inflation adjusted.
Given the fiscal situation the triple lock should be abandoned, but the pension needs to rise by at least CPI, otherwise it will be worthless by the time working people get there.
JagLover 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.
The employer is also paying in as well. On a median salary total NI paid will be around £6K. Times by 35, say, to take account of times not working/on less hours and that would be over the £200K you mention. The more people who demand that the State gives them money, the more pressure there is to raise taxes.
Many will be paying in a lot more, many a lot less, but the full time worker in the middle is paying over £200K, inflation adjusted.
Given the fiscal situation the triple lock should be abandoned, but the pension needs to rise by at least CPI, otherwise it will be worthless by the time working people get there.
Means treating doesn’t work in the same way that it doesn’t work for benefits.
We have benefit claimants who won’t work extra hours because they lose benefits, how do you encourage people to save to provide their own pension if the first thing they lose when they do is the state pension.
It would create lots of investment schemes in the areas which are not counted in the means testing
It also takes away the justification fo NI,
We have benefit claimants who won’t work extra hours because they lose benefits, how do you encourage people to save to provide their own pension if the first thing they lose when they do is the state pension.
It would create lots of investment schemes in the areas which are not counted in the means testing
It also takes away the justification fo NI,
M1AGM said:
Strange how its too difficult to means test the state pension but not child benefit. Why is that?
That rather illustrates the problem as the means testing of child benefit is crude and arbitrary and, often, hammers single earner two parent households where the Mother is looking after the children in the first few years of their lives. The level of withdrawal has also remained unchanged since creation at between £50k to £60k and so more and more middle earners are being hit. The lesson is perhaps not to bring in arbitrary means testing on political grounds, and, if it is brought in, it will soon hit those in the middle.
Edited by JagLover on Tuesday 21st March 07:03
JagLover said:
M1AGM said:
Strange how its too difficult to means test the state pension but not child benefit. Why is that?
That rather illustrates the problem as the means testing of child benefit is crude and arbitrary and, often, hammers single earner two parent households where the Mother is looking after the children in the first few years of their lives. The level of withdrawal has also remained unchanged since creation at between £50k to £60k and so more and more middle earners are being hit. The lesson is perhaps not to bring in arbitrary means testing on political grounds, and, if it is brought in, it will soon hit those in the middle.
Edited by JagLover on Tuesday 21st March 07:03
JagLover said:
That rather illustrates the problem as the means testing of child benefit is crude and arbitrary and, often, hammers single earner two parent households where the Mother is looking after the children in the first few years of their lives.
The level of withdrawal has also remained unchanged since creation at between £50k to £60k and so more and more middle earners are being hit. The lesson is perhaps not to bring in arbitrary means testing on political grounds, and, if it is brought in, it will soon hit those in the middle.
See also frozen thresholds meaning millions more people are paying higher rate tax. The level of withdrawal has also remained unchanged since creation at between £50k to £60k and so more and more middle earners are being hit. The lesson is perhaps not to bring in arbitrary means testing on political grounds, and, if it is brought in, it will soon hit those in the middle.
Edited by JagLover on Tuesday 21st March 07:03
GT03ROB said:
...and yet that is what you are proposing the government do.
People have paid into the state pension for years. The state has used the money for other things, is now in financial trouble & you propose the state doesn't pay out.
Your proposal is little different from what Maxwell did.
Isn't the difference that Maxwell took contributions specifically for a work place pension and was contractually obliged to provide one. "National Insurance" is just a name for a tax which is raised and spent by the government of the day. They could can the state pension (and NHS, benefits etc) tomorrow and there's no broken contract. There's no pension fund or insurance bonds behind it. It's just fancy names for taxes.People have paid into the state pension for years. The state has used the money for other things, is now in financial trouble & you propose the state doesn't pay out.
Your proposal is little different from what Maxwell did.
why would you means test the pension?
It might be the right thing to do today, but that is only because there are a lot of pensioners enjoying the benefits of a final salary pension, or at least significantly better pensions than my generation will get.
So if you means test it, that'll probably back fire in 20 years, when we are all scratching around trying to make ends meet.
It might be the right thing to do today, but that is only because there are a lot of pensioners enjoying the benefits of a final salary pension, or at least significantly better pensions than my generation will get.
So if you means test it, that'll probably back fire in 20 years, when we are all scratching around trying to make ends meet.
Glosphil said:
I'm a pensioner & don't vote Tory; neither does my wife or most of our pensioner friends.
10.1‰ extra on the state pension is around £1,000 per year so equivalent to less than 3% on the average wage. The rises in petrol, food & energy costs are just the same for us.
With respect, you aren't working. If you want your income compared to those who are, working is the option you are looking for.10.1‰ extra on the state pension is around £1,000 per year so equivalent to less than 3% on the average wage. The rises in petrol, food & energy costs are just the same for us.
Inflationary increases are all that should be due. And a temporary spike in inflation should be handled separately.
If people want more, they either needed to have saved more earlier in life, or go out and get more now.
GT03ROB said:
Quite... countdown appears to have not considered that total NI contribution for many is around 26% (employee & employer)... this is pretty hefty & if was for pension alone would give a very good pension over a lifetime.
We all know, or should, that it's not paying in for any one thing. It's just tax and it's paying for everything. Most people in this country are not paying in enough for the services they receive.Is this the fault of the politicians, or the electorate who vote for those promising the moon on a stick?
It would be interesting to see a party propose a properly funded pension scheme, and to see how much that might really cost.
IJWS15 said:
.... .
We have benefit claimants who won’t work extra hours because they lose benefits....
A situation that really should not be allowed/possible. It should not be possible to choose not to work due to loss of state benefits. (People have mentioned the social contract on here... This is where individuals are breaking it). We have benefit claimants who won’t work extra hours because they lose benefits....
Policing that is the tricky part.
Better tapering off of benefits would possibly be part of a solution, but there's always going to be a high marginal rate in these circumstances. So part of the solution also needs to be stick rather than carrot.
Glosphil said:
10.1‰ extra on the state pension is around £1,000 per year so equivalent to less than 3% on the average wage. The rises in petrol, food & energy costs are just the same for us.
But the rises in mortgage costs and commuting costs are not. Plus the increases in food and clothes just apply to you, you're not feeding and clothing your children. JuanCarlosFandango said:
GT03ROB said:
...and yet that is what you are proposing the government do.
People have paid into the state pension for years. The state has used the money for other things, is now in financial trouble & you propose the state doesn't pay out.
Your proposal is little different from what Maxwell did.
Isn't the difference that Maxwell took contributions specifically for a work place pension and was contractually obliged to provide one. "National Insurance" is just a name for a tax which is raised and spent by the government of the day. They could can the state pension (and NHS, benefits etc) tomorrow and there's no broken contract. There's no pension fund or insurance bonds behind it. It's just fancy names for taxes.People have paid into the state pension for years. The state has used the money for other things, is now in financial trouble & you propose the state doesn't pay out.
Your proposal is little different from what Maxwell did.
Whilst they continue to peddle the illusion that it pays for your state pension, there is a reasonable expectation that there will be a pension paid to all equally, based on their NI contribution record. There is a ceiling on contributions, because everyone receives the same, you can top up your contribution record voluntarily to get more pension. Everything related to NI leads people to the conclusion it is a a policy that pays their pension.
It convenient to government of all colours to not have a headline basic tax rate of 32%. but thats what it is.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Glosphil said:
10.1‰ extra on the state pension is around £1,000 per year so equivalent to less than 3% on the average wage. The rises in petrol, food & energy costs are just the same for us.
But the rises in mortgage costs and commuting costs are not. Plus the increases in food and clothes just apply to you, you're not feeding and clothing your children. You know so much about PHer backgrounds, not from stalking obviously, just impressive extra sensory perception.
Nearby a pensioner couple have just welcomed one of their adult offspring back, such things happen for obvious reasons if you're wideawake. As to individual cases well who knows, and with not knowing there's always ageist guesswork.
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff