State pension increase - good, bad, indifferent
Discussion
GT03ROB said:
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.
It's like somebody insisting they're entitled to Universal Credit for ever because they paid NI for about 3 days.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
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.
There is legislation in place for the NI to be paid and the maintenance of the fund arising. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nationa...
So it would be a breach of the contract involved in paying NI if the government canned it.
Murph7355 said:
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.
I wasn't suggesting that I have an income comparable to those working just that I have to pay the increases in prices from a lower income which attracts a lower monetary rise.
Glosphil said:
Murph7355 said:
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.
I wasn't suggesting that I have an income comparable to those working just that I have to pay the increases in prices from a lower income which attracts a lower monetary rise.
Countdown said:
GT03ROB said:
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.
It's like somebody insisting they're entitled to Universal Credit for ever because they paid NI for about 3 days.
However if you tell me & keep telling me my pension is based on my NI record don't be surprised if I turn round & say I'm due my pension. If you as a government siphoned that money off to spend on other things it really is no different to Maxwell.
No doubt somebody on UC gets there NI credits. anyway!!
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. Countdown said:
if that 26% had been sufficient to pay the SP then it wouldn't be unfunded i.e. the contributions of current workers are being used to pay the pensions of those that have retired. The fact is that NI wasn't ringfenced for pensions. It was used as another form of general taxation (because nobody wants to pay more tax). And that situation is going to get worse as the ration of Workers to Pensioners gets worse. So we can keep telling ourselves the lie that we are owed a pension "because we paid our NI", ignoring the fact that we didn't pay enough in general taxes to fund all the expenditure we insisted on OR we can bite the bullet and accept that the SP is unaffordable.
It's like somebody insisting they're entitled to Universal Credit for ever because they paid NI for about 3 days.
Point of fact if we are considering the state pension in isolation there isn't a worsening ratioIt's like somebody insisting they're entitled to Universal Credit for ever because they paid NI for about 3 days.
Number of people on the state pension ten years ago was about 13 million, it is now 12.4 million. This is due to changes in the retirement age, particularly for women.
The numbers of those in work are now 33 million, ten years ago it was just over 29 million.
I would suggest the problems are more to do with quality of work, a welfare system that discourages working more than 16 hours a week for millions and a growing number of people of working age economically inactive (see welfare system again for many).
Countdown said:
GT03ROB said:
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.
It's like somebody insisting they're entitled to Universal Credit for ever because they paid NI for about 3 days.
1. Whether the state pension is fully funded (i.e. viable/sustainable)
2. Whether it should be means tested.
If you means test, you'll exacerbate point 1 that you're making quite strongly. Those who contribute least in NI over their careers will tend to be those most entitled to means testing in retirement.
I totally agree with you that the state pension uses a lie that 'we've paid our contributions, so are entitled to it'. The numbers simply don't stack up. But the fair solution isn't to means test it - it's to cut the outlay on it (ending triple-lock, raising pension age etc.) or increase the contributions (e.g. making NI payable beyond retirement age)
crankedup5 said:
I support the NHS doctors/nurses/ paramedic staff in their quest for a decent pay rise. The degradation of their pay over the past decade or more is shameful Tory policy which has now come to a head.
Back on topic, most people in work today will soon become pension claimants (hopefully). For this reason it is important to retain the triple lock on pensions that will ensure the value of the pension payment is kept.
Everyone's pay has degraded.Back on topic, most people in work today will soon become pension claimants (hopefully). For this reason it is important to retain the triple lock on pensions that will ensure the value of the pension payment is kept.
This seems to be the argument of all the unions that in reqlbterms we are 20 30 40% worse off than 10 years ago.
But the whole country is poorer as the rest of the world gets better off.
Offshore jobs to India and China manufacturing them wonder why your standard of living isndropping
Biggy Stardust said:
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.
Agree, education, drive and strive for a decent life, unfortunately our current level of taxation makes that ever more tough.
vulture1 said:
crankedup5 said:
I support the NHS doctors/nurses/ paramedic staff in their quest for a decent pay rise. The degradation of their pay over the past decade or more is shameful Tory policy which has now come to a head.
Back on topic, most people in work today will soon become pension claimants (hopefully). For this reason it is important to retain the triple lock on pensions that will ensure the value of the pension payment is kept.
Everyone's pay has degraded.Back on topic, most people in work today will soon become pension claimants (hopefully). For this reason it is important to retain the triple lock on pensions that will ensure the value of the pension payment is kept.
This seems to be the argument of all the unions that in reqlbterms we are 20 30 40% worse off than 10 years ago.
But the whole country is poorer as the rest of the world gets better off.
Offshore jobs to India and China manufacturing them wonder why your standard of living isndropping
So a few examples we could have created but did not
Ebay
Facebook (friends reunited could have been)
Amazon
Spotify
Youtube (I believe a British guy did create porntube but what became of him is all a bit dodgy)
Tesla (rover just made a mess of everything)
None of thoes did the UK spawn but cheap off shore labour was not the reason
vulture1 said:
crankedup5 said:
I support the NHS doctors/nurses/ paramedic staff in their quest for a decent pay rise. The degradation of their pay over the past decade or more is shameful Tory policy which has now come to a head.
Back on topic, most people in work today will soon become pension claimants (hopefully). For this reason it is important to retain the triple lock on pensions that will ensure the value of the pension payment is kept.
Everyone's pay has degraded.Back on topic, most people in work today will soon become pension claimants (hopefully). For this reason it is important to retain the triple lock on pensions that will ensure the value of the pension payment is kept.
This seems to be the argument of all the unions that in reqlbterms we are 20 30 40% worse off than 10 years ago.
But the whole country is poorer as the rest of the world gets better off.
Offshore jobs to India and China manufacturing them wonder why your standard of living isndropping
Not disagreeing with your comments at all, however looking at the pay levels of the private sector v public sector it is very notable that the private sector have increased the pay gap substancially over the public sector. Looking at the period of the 2010 - 2022. But yes living standards across the board, with a few exceptions. have dropped. BTW I looked at the New Statesman graphs published.
JagLover said:
Point of fact if we are considering the state pension in isolation there isn't a worsening ratio
Number of people on the state pension ten years ago was about 13 million, it is now 12.4 million. This is due to changes in the retirement age, particularly for women.
The numbers of those in work are now 33 million, ten years ago it was just over 29 million.
I would suggest the problems are more to do with quality of work, a welfare system that discourages working more than 16 hours a week for millions and a growing number of people of working age economically inactive (see welfare system again for many).
Your post led me to do some of my own research.Number of people on the state pension ten years ago was about 13 million, it is now 12.4 million. This is due to changes in the retirement age, particularly for women.
The numbers of those in work are now 33 million, ten years ago it was just over 29 million.
I would suggest the problems are more to do with quality of work, a welfare system that discourages working more than 16 hours a week for millions and a growing number of people of working age economically inactive (see welfare system again for many).
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/dwp-benef...
Can someone give me the top line on the pension credit? Is that for pensioners who are below a threshold or something?
M1AGM said:
Your post led me to do some of my own research.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/dwp-benef...
Can someone give me the top line on the pension credit? Is that for pensioners who are below a threshold or something?
Pension credit is a means tested benefit. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/dwp-benef...
Can someone give me the top line on the pension credit? Is that for pensioners who are below a threshold or something?
https://www.gov.uk/pension-credit/eligibility
Given the level it would primarily be paid to those who don't have either enough qualifying years I would imagine, or sufficient earnings on the old pension system (pre 2016).
JagLover said:
M1AGM said:
Your post led me to do some of my own research.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/dwp-benef...
Can someone give me the top line on the pension credit? Is that for pensioners who are below a threshold or something?
Pension credit is a means tested benefit. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/dwp-benef...
Can someone give me the top line on the pension credit? Is that for pensioners who are below a threshold or something?
https://www.gov.uk/pension-credit/eligibility
Given the level it would primarily be paid to those who don't have either enough qualifying years I would imagine, or sufficient earnings on the old pension system (pre 2016).
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
^^^^^This.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
Edited by aeropilot on Tuesday 21st March 12:18
crankedup5 said:
vulture1 said:
crankedup5 said:
I support the NHS doctors/nurses/ paramedic staff in their quest for a decent pay rise. The degradation of their pay over the past decade or more is shameful Tory policy which has now come to a head.
Back on topic, most people in work today will soon become pension claimants (hopefully). For this reason it is important to retain the triple lock on pensions that will ensure the value of the pension payment is kept.
Everyone's pay has degraded.Back on topic, most people in work today will soon become pension claimants (hopefully). For this reason it is important to retain the triple lock on pensions that will ensure the value of the pension payment is kept.
This seems to be the argument of all the unions that in reqlbterms we are 20 30 40% worse off than 10 years ago.
But the whole country is poorer as the rest of the world gets better off.
Offshore jobs to India and China manufacturing them wonder why your standard of living isndropping
Not disagreeing with your comments at all, however looking at the pay levels of the private sector v public sector it is very notable that the private sector have increased the pay gap substancially over the public sector. Looking at the period of the 2010 - 2022. But yes living standards across the board, with a few exceptions. have dropped. BTW I looked at the New Statesman graphs published.
Bluequay said:
According to the IFS when you include pension contributions average public sector renumeration is 6% higher than the private sector.
Facts and full information are not required, thank you very much. The public sector are underpaid heroes who work harder than anyone else for almost slave rates & I'll thank you to doff your cap for their service.Bluequay said:
crankedup5 said:
vulture1 said:
crankedup5 said:
I support the NHS doctors/nurses/ paramedic staff in their quest for a decent pay rise. The degradation of their pay over the past decade or more is shameful Tory policy which has now come to a head.
Back on topic, most people in work today will soon become pension claimants (hopefully). For this reason it is important to retain the triple lock on pensions that will ensure the value of the pension payment is kept.
Everyone's pay has degraded.Back on topic, most people in work today will soon become pension claimants (hopefully). For this reason it is important to retain the triple lock on pensions that will ensure the value of the pension payment is kept.
This seems to be the argument of all the unions that in reqlbterms we are 20 30 40% worse off than 10 years ago.
But the whole country is poorer as the rest of the world gets better off.
Offshore jobs to India and China manufacturing them wonder why your standard of living isndropping
Not disagreeing with your comments at all, however looking at the pay levels of the private sector v public sector it is very notable that the private sector have increased the pay gap substancially over the public sector. Looking at the period of the 2010 - 2022. But yes living standards across the board, with a few exceptions. have dropped. BTW I looked at the New Statesman graphs published.
Deferred but not to be forgotten.
Bluequay said:
crankedup5 said:
vulture1 said:
crankedup5 said:
I support the NHS doctors/nurses/ paramedic staff in their quest for a decent pay rise. The degradation of their pay over the past decade or more is shameful Tory policy which has now come to a head.
Back on topic, most people in work today will soon become pension claimants (hopefully). For this reason it is important to retain the triple lock on pensions that will ensure the value of the pension payment is kept.
Everyone's pay has degraded.Back on topic, most people in work today will soon become pension claimants (hopefully). For this reason it is important to retain the triple lock on pensions that will ensure the value of the pension payment is kept.
This seems to be the argument of all the unions that in reqlbterms we are 20 30 40% worse off than 10 years ago.
But the whole country is poorer as the rest of the world gets better off.
Offshore jobs to India and China manufacturing them wonder why your standard of living isndropping
Not disagreeing with your comments at all, however looking at the pay levels of the private sector v public sector it is very notable that the private sector have increased the pay gap substancially over the public sector. Looking at the period of the 2010 - 2022. But yes living standards across the board, with a few exceptions. have dropped. BTW I looked at the New Statesman graphs published.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff