How could we theoretically means test the state pension?

Don't means test the state pension.Whenever anything is means tested the better off then have no incentive to support its retention - and it will reduce in value for the less well off.
Instead increase taxation for the well-off, such as those above £100,000 and especially those with millions and even billions.
The government argues that those on high incomes (and even £45000) 'don't need' their Child Benefit. Do those with six figure (or more) salaries need their 40%/50% tax rates? Do they need their Capital Gains Tax allowances? etc.

///////Why should the likes of fred goodwin on his £700,000/yr pension also receive the state pension?! its madness!//////

Why not, he has paid for it all well.

/////I believe we have a huge problem //////

We sure do.

//////I havent saved and worked hard to lose out why others who didnt bother get supported.////////

Ille tell you what, let's all live in our own little worlds, in our own little bubbles, while society goes crazy around us.

Then when it comes to the general election, we can all choose by find out "what's in it for us".

Oops sorry, we all did that in the 80's, and now we are all sooooooooooooooooo devided, and mostly conquered, but we dont see it.

We are still asking "what's in it for us" ?

Devide and conquer all the way.

British politicians sure know how to win power.

Try this.

I was'nt that Sgt Bilko was so clever. It was that his men were so stupid.

If we means tested the state pension they'd be uproar, people who were excluded from it would rightly be demanding their national insurance back as the Governments have been telling them that it is being used to fund their pension for years.

If the OAP is to be means tested then can i please have back whatever part of my taxes goes to pay pensions please.

I havent saved and worked hard to lose out why others who didnt bother get supported.

'As for the idea that means testing pensions will discourage people from saving.. I do not see anyone who aspires to live on the minimum wage or the minimum of anything. This is total nonsense.'

My mum gets a reduced state pension, plus her small civil service pension, and has savings. Because she has savings she cannot get ctb, or pension credit and she does sometimes wonder why she bothered to make provision for her retirement.

I believe we have a huge problem in that large numbers of young people leave university with almost worthless degrees, debt, no possibility of buying property, no intention of settling down or marrying or whatever. They have no stakes in our country.

It's a large and unstable section of society. If they become discontented it could make for some very uncomfortable times.

At least it will be time-limited. I imagine that within twenty years the large baby boomer population will have shrunk quite a bit and that will ease the housing market problem to a degree.

The state pension was originally to ensure that people would not be left destitute when they were no longer able to work. Not to ensure fit, healthy and wealthy retirees could take several foreign holidays a year, as is now often the case.

You are misreading me expat, or maybe (more likely!) I'm not putting myself across very well.

I'm not saying at all that someone that doesn't own a house outright is less deserving. I'm saying that everyone deserves equally regardless of their wealth. That means the poor as well as the rich.

You wouldn't be paying higher taxes so that my kids can inherit. You would be paying higher taxes to provide for your care in your old age should you need it, as would I.

Why are you more deserving of state help than me because you rent and I manged to get a mortgage? (disclaimer - obviously I have no idea of your personal financial circumstances, I'm just trying to make a point).

''Plenty of people, an increasing number, who haven't been able to buy a home, do without in life and work hard''
Yes, and plenty of people that have been able to buy a home have done without in life in order to buy that home, and have worked hard too. They are equally as deserving of state help.

I agree more that state pensions should be means tested, but I think the threshold should be fairly high so that pensioners that have accrued wealth should be able to spend it as they wish in their old age, but they shouldn't be getting state help if they really don't need it.

Laurie - this is a fantastic point you are making, and I wonder why it has been mentioned so little considering all the talk of deficit disasters and 'essential' cuts.

I completely agree that the basic state pension should be means tested. Why should the likes of fred goodwin on his £700,000/yr pension also receive the state pension?! its madness!

As for the idea that means testing pensions will discourage people from saving.. I do not see anyone who aspires to live on the minimum wage or the minimum of anything. This is total nonsense.

'and it is a very difficult dilemma. I can completely understand the arguement that if someone can afford to pay for their treatment then they should, but it just keeps strinking me as unfair on people who have saved and gone without other things.'

But you're talking about the house as an inheritance, that's not a savings account. So that implies that anyone who doesn't have a house they own outright is someone who is less deserving.

Which is silly because such people are already at a huge disadvantage when it comes to care in old age - ever seen waiting lists for publicly run care homes?

Plenty of people, an increasing number, who haven't been able to buy a home, do without in life and work hard.

I'm not willing to pay higher taxes so your kids can inherit. I can't think of many who'd pay higher taxes so an increasingly few number of people can inherit their parents' assets.

So yes, your plan to remortgage to finance your children's education is probably a good one.

I'm not assuming that everyone who rents does so through choice, but 40 -50 years ago, buying a house was a viable option for most people, unlike today. Those people did have a choice, and didn't make the choice to buy knowing that it would be taken away from them in their old age. Unlike the buyers of today.

I know that we can't afford to give evryone care, and that the money has to come from somewhere, so yes, I would be willing to pay more in tax if it meant that my children could inherit my house when DH and I are gone. I do see what you are saying huddspur, and it is a very difficult dilemma. I can completely understand the arguement that if someone can afford to pay for their treatment then they should, but it just keeps strinking me as unfair on people who have saved and gone without other things.

If we can afford to pay for care for people that don't have assets, then we can afford to pay for care for people that do.

Maybe there could be a limit in how much people are allowed to inherit after tax if the person that has left the inhertiance has needed a certain level of care for x amount of years. I don't have all the answers, but the system as it is at the moment provides no incentive at all to save for retirement or buy a house.

I'd rather spend any money I have now, remortgage my property to pay for my childrens university education, and not worry about saving. My family would be better off doing that if DH and I ended up needing care and would still get it if we have no money left.

As it is, owning a home you can sell affords you a much better standard of care than is available to all those feckless renters who paid the BTL landlord mortgage blew the lot on flash holidays.

As nice as it might sound, we simply cannot afford to give everyone free care in their old age. Those that can will have to make a contribution towards it and if that means having to sell their house thne that is what they will have to do. I don't see any other althernative.

'Everyone should be entiltled to care from the state, whether they have bought a house or not.'

So you're willing to pay more taxes to fund that entitlement then?

'Those children will pay a huge amount in inheritance tax though,'

Not necessarily if you're talking about a house. Unless it's over £325K.

And, once again, you are assuming that everyone who rents is doing so as a choice and are in no way as 'hard-working' as someone with a mortgage.

'And I don't see how it's fair for the working taxpayer to subsidise the inheritance of elderly people's children by paying for care.'

Those children will pay a huge amount in inheritance tax though, so alot of the money will still go back into the system. Regardless of whether or not the old person actually recieves care. Plenty of parents die too young to ever need it, or remain quite healthy until they die.

I do take the point that renters have their own set of expenses too, but the generation that is elderly right now didn't have the problems that people have now with student debt or taking a mortgage.

I'm really thinking about the way things are now, it's all going to be very differnent when we are older, and probably much worse.

It just doesn't seem right to me that two people can make different choices in life but get the same level of care if they need it. Everyone should be entiltled to care from the state, whether they have bought a house or not. It just seems that those people that have worked hard to pay off their mortgages are penalised for doing so, and end up no better of for it in the long run.

I'll only get that myself, if at all, because the fact is, whatever we pay in isn't enough to support so many living so long.

Of course I have paid for it. I will only get the basic OAP nothing else, maybe i should not have worked hard and made provisions for myself to have a well funded retirement.

Assets should be sold to pay for care, it is madness to think anything else.

Yes it presents problems. DH is 7 years older than me, so the situation where we need to pay for care for him while I still need our home to live in is very likely. We will have to prepare for that, and make sure that we've got surplus cash to pay for care, if we want to be sure that I can remain in our home.

'Why should I sell my home to pay for care - I have already paid for the possibility of needing that care.'

No, you haven't. Because the cost of that care is way over and above what you and I paid in NI.

So why should the taxpayer subsidise your child's inheritance?

I'm 39. I'm under no illusions there will be any retirement for me, either.

It's not fair when I'm being expected to pay for babyboomers to live to 100, but that's life.

"I can't see how it can be fair to make a pensioner sell their house to pay for their care. Or to be able to maintain a reasonable standard of living if they don't need care."

And I don't see how it's fair for the working taxpayer to subsidise the inheritance of elderly people's children by paying for care.

'I have paid NI for 20 years so far, I will continue to pay it for at least 30 more- do you honestly think there will be state pensions when I retire? Do you honestly think people below 40 now will ever be able to retire?'

True - but I think it actually applies to those under 50 not 40.
I have done everything I was supposed to do. I saved for my pension since my very first job - I signed a contract - but the rules change all the time, I have to pay more, receive less, work longer...
The notion that I might possibly provide some of the childcare for my daughter's children in the future is a pipe dream.
I feel cheated.
Yes I bought my home a few years ago, yes it is worth more than I paid for it BUT it was not bought for £2/3000, it cost the best part of £150k and I still have a huge mortgage.
There is also not the benefit of knowing you have a 'job for life' in these times.
Frankly, I don't have space in my head to worry about what will happen, I'm struggling to cope with what is happening.
The baby boomers (and I include my own family members) may have had difficult times, they may have paid their dues and they may deserve what they reap now but so do I.
Why should I sell my home to pay for care - I have already paid for the possibility of needing that care.
I have worked blardy hard to pay for my house and inheriting it is the only way my dtr might possibly acquire a deposit for her own home. That and the fact that my disabled son would be homeless...