I’ve easily found £30bn of savings, so why can’t the government do this?

do you actually have any thoughts or arguments of your own, or have you outsourced all your thinking to Chat GPT?

Off the top of my head I've already spotted one clear error in "your" rationale - the 13 million = 1 in 4 voters is actually a quarter of the electorate which in 2024 was approx 48 million people. However only between 2/3 and 3/4 of the electorate (just under 29million in 2024) actually turn out to vote - a much higher percentage of whom are pensioners. Therefore they might only be 1/4 of all the potential voters but it's much more likely to be at least 2/4 or more of actual voters. Not to mention that you can't just assume everyone under 65 would vote for it - most people coming up to pension age in the next decade or two, who have been paying into a private pension on the understanding they'd benefit from both, would be turkeys voting for Christmas to vote for this.

But I assume you’re not over 80? You get more if you’re over 80.

Haven't read thread, but I am sure I am just reiterating what many people have said when I say that this fundamentally changes the terms on which people paid national insurance and disincentives saving, so it's a bit of a non starter as a political proposition.

restored trust between generations so young taxpayers see their money spent on genuine need, not luxury.

Not sure whether this is true, as under 40s also lose out and would be told that perhaps 10-20 years of NICs are worth nothing.

But we ARE "in a couple" and the letters state £100 each! I've just looked it up and nowhere does it say "If x applies to you, you'll get £100" (as in our letters) so I'm now very confused indeed!

It is the idea of "net contributors" that is tedious (and inaccurate). Presumably the opposite of "net contributors" is "skivers" or " leeches" or something similar.

As we move through our lives we are all at one time either "net contributors" or "net recipients" - it just describes an economic situation at a given point in time.

@WithDiamonds Before you reached the age of 18, how much of a "net contributor" were you? Who paid for your care at birth, your innoculations, your healthcare as you grew up, your education, the bus that you used to get to school and the roads that the bus (or your parent's car) travelled on?

When you left school and went on to study, or started working at an entry-level job, who paid for your healthcare, who paid for the police, military, national infrastructure etc.?

Only when someone reaches a certain level of income does anyone become a "net contributor" - in fact, most people never reach this level. Income Tax is not the only tax and only it accounts for only around 25% of Treasury income.

Currently, the state pension system pays the same to everyone, even to households with very large private pensions and investment incomes.

Actually, after tax it doesn't. Many working age benefits are not taxed

In your calculations those having over 12.5k of income will pay 20% tax on their state pension (your proposal has them paying 50%) capping out their subsidised income at £25k which is £20k after tax or £54/day (£68 pretax).

National minimum wage is £12.21/hour or £92/day.. Everyone says that's too little but you want pensioners on 2/3 of that. Really?

Much of this money ends up funding luxuries.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying pensioners should not enjoy any luxuries, just subsist until they die??

People already spend so they don’t have to pay for care. People are sick of paying for other people. More people need to contribute.

Oh do leave off - no party could get away with that idea. How about less UC?

Yes, exactly, I am over 50 and saving like mad to try and reduce my mortgage and build a pension pot. If that is all going to be taxed I might as well start treating myself now - luxury holidays, expensive meals out, etc.

I think it’s £150 for each in a couple, £300 for a single person if you’re over 80.

I apologise. My mum told me she and step got 150 each. She is 89 and does slip up sometimes now.

So are we talking about completely irradicating disabled people here then? If you're born with a disability meaning you can't work or contribute to a capitalist system you're not worth sustaining beyond crust of bread and a slum?

Not true. My civil partner and I both got letters telling us we'd each get £100 (not the amounts you suggest). The letters state that if your gross income is above £35k (mine is), they will claw it back. We had planned to give it all to charity, so will now give £100 (plus an extra £100 because it's nearly Christmas).

I''ve no idea where these other amounts are coming from or going to!

Oh those greedy pensioners on £12k a year private pensions who have paid there full national insurance stamp, Christ I could maybe understand if you wanted to means test pensioners with 6 figure pensions but private pensions that would barely pay the rent on a bedsit, (because less and less people will be home owners in the future), WTAF....

But before even considering any mean testing pensions, how about collecting billionaire and corporate tax evasion, which completely dwarfs £30 billion a year!

If someone actually tackled THAT then I'd be voting for them and dragging every soul I knew to the ballet box, not for further putting the screws on the working and middle class whilst the richest in society absolutley fuck us over and have us at each others throats for the scraps.

Get rid of all quality improvements in the NHS, they don't improve anything, they slow clinical staff down and it's a jolly for the "officers" doing these roles.
I recently worked with a Band 7, QI officer who spent her days collating a file of local resources (took her 18 months). There are already fab national Apps (Hub of Hope!) that do this. It would have been a nice project for a sixth form health care student.
Absolute piss take.

Supposedly this is how benefits work in some European countries. I'm always puzzled by this though? I mean what do they do about people who haven't paid anything in? Are they just destitute?
We had a Ukrainian family living with us a while ago. They claimed UC when they arrived. It was a mum and primary school aged child. The mum fully expected benefit payments to stop after six months (as in Ukraine apparently) and had thought she'd go home if that happened. She was very pleasantly surprised to hear they have no end date.

If you do this people will adjust their behaviour accordingly. They won’t save into private pensions.
In addition, you will be removing many people’s incentive to work at all.
I also think administering the scheme (eg means testing pensioners) would be extremely expensive and complicated.
People who have paid national insurance have been encouraged to consider the state pension theirs by right. This would be seen as theft. It would be a breach of trust between the government and the people.

I might be wrong but it surely only changes from a certain point onwards, not retrospectively. In the nhs it changed a few years ago but someone my age who is still some way off pension age could still have had 20 years built up in a final salary scheme rather than a career average. So they will have two pension schemes running if they’re still working.

Plus the mcloud remedy means they can choose for their pension between I think 2015 and 2020 whether it’s career average or final salary…..I’m very hazy on those details. But I do know for sure that I have 2 final salary schemes (one private sector and one nhs) and a career average scheme (nhs).

Thank you. Somebody has already pointed this out. I thought it just got sent to you.

I think welfare should be directly linked to how much tax you have paid.
If you have paid in very little then you are entitled to very little.

As usual net contributors get penalised, I find this sort of pseudo socialism being peddled as a solution is getting really tedious.

You do have to claim it. I know two people who have passed state retirement age and have not yet claimed it. Both are very wealthy.

Therefore the problem is insoluble. The "I've paid my stamp" people who think NI contributions are their own personal savings plan

This is why NI should be abolished and income tax adjusted accordingly. And it's something that - before manifesto writing happens - there should be a cross party consensus on, so it can't be used as leverage.

Unless you think "tax the rich" will actually work. As if "the rich" will keep handing over ever increasing sums of money.

Just use ChatGPT 🙄

@Paetina totally agree