How could we theoretically means test the state pension?

Just wanted to get a couple of facts correct:

The basic state pension isn't £70 - it's £97.65pw
Pension Credit tops the pension for a single person with no other source of income to £132.60pw.

The argument that 'they have paid for it' is spurious.
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?

We will be the first generation to have a lowered life expectancy than the previous one. We will have to work until the grave.
We have had to delay child-bearing/rearing to a later age due to the inflation in housing costs, the abolition of student grants, and the introduction of loans, etc. We will still be raising our children whilst nursing our parents- not that they'll be able to move into our 'family' homes that you cannot swing a cat in- no 'spare' rooms for anyone in my generation.

Enormous housing costs, our children's student fees will ensure we cannot save adequately for our retirement. Those of us in pension schemes are already having T&C changes forced upon us- we won't benefit from what we signed up for. People joining employment now aren't even allowed to join the pension scheme.

'because they have chosen to rent and spend money on holidays rather than maintain a house. Renters arent the ones that have had to save up to buy new boilers or get a house rewired, they pay for that in their rent, often a simeler amount to a mortgage payment.'

Yes, because people who rent only do so to go on flash holidays and buy luxuries.

Not live with the threat of getting moved on with 2 months notice every six months and then pay thousands of pounds every time they do.

And, actually, in many areas, it's cheaper to have a mortgage than to rent. It's just that most renters can't manage to save the amount required for a deposit anymore.

But they pay the mortage off for some BTL landlord.

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.

Why should someone that chooses to buy a house and has spent their life paying for it lose out because someone else that lives on the same road get all that care for free because they have chosen to rent and spend money on holidays rather than maintain a house. Renters arent the ones that have had to save up to buy new boilers or get a house rewired, they pay for that in their rent, often a simeler amount to a mortgage payment.

Old people need care, and we will always have old people. Children need education, and their will always be children. Maybe we should make them pay for that? Oh no, they will pay for that in their taxes as they get older.

Just like the old people already did when they were younger.

I have made a lot of money (in theory) because of house price rises but unless I sell up how do I access the money unless I downsize, my two sons will benifit not me.

As for the state pension, why should it be means tested?, I pay over £2000 a month in tax and NI I think I am entitled to at least an OAP even though my company pension will be in excess of £24K (adjusted for inflation), this is being selfish I have PAID for it already.

I have never claimed any benifit except CB

If you were going to means test the state pension it should be based on income (i.e. how much you receive from your private pension) and not on assets. It's not their fault their house is worth a certain amount of money, they just bought a house and probably worked hard for it. They can't take it with them when they die so the value is irrelevant really if they don't want to sell.

Pensions are the largest slice of the pie in the welfare budget.

They'll never means test is just like they didn't scrap universal benefits or raise the age at which you can claim them.

I don't see why a person shouldn't sell what they've got to pay for their care, either.

And if we all have to take cuts, including children, then I see no reason why pensioners shouldn't, too.

Given that they have paid for their pensions, then you take away the incentive to plan for retirement. State pension is also coded out first before tax is applied to occupational pensions.

These pensioners have to fund care anyway, so will be paying for that, and if they are already higher rate taxpayers, why hit them more?

I've been thinking about this one over the last few days.

I definitely wouldn't agree with forcing anyone to sell their home - though I am a strong supporter of Inheritance tax.

I do think that stopping state pensions being universal would be a bad road to go down.

But, given that they are already taxed, I wonder if there would be a case for increasing the tax rate on state pension income for those whose retirement income reaches the 40% band (so having an additional 50% or 60% band on state pension income only).

It would take relatively little from a group of very wealthy pensioners, but it would act to share the impact that current cuts are having with a group who have benefitted from an extremely favourable period in UK history.

So you are planning to sell your home to pay for your care - how are you going to do that if you have already had to sell it to pay for your normal living expenses because the pension was means-tested?

If you choose to make do and mend or go without to pay your mortgage in the earlier part of your life, and to make provision for your kids education, and to have put money aside to help fund your retirement, and paid your NI, so have an entitlement to a pension - what is the problem?

It is unfair to penalise those who have made provision for their retirement. You cannot 'force' people to sell their houses, after all, they own them, have paid for them out of taxed income, so it is nothing to do with you how much they are worth.

As to your comment about ways to get around selling the house to pay for care - renting it out to pay for care meets the dual purpose of part funding the fees and keeping the property available to pass on.

One of your goals may be to bring house prices down - it isn't one of mine, not until I've paid the mortgage off.

You can't means test the state pension as its linked to NI contributions.

/////whilst many laze around doing nothing////

Have you statistical proof of this ?, or are you just parroting the politicians and the media ?

//////laurie - your idea about means testing pensions doesn't sound too far removed from robbery to me. people have paid for a pension for years via NI - its just not acceptable to then not provide a pension in return.///////

Brilliant.

laurie - i fully intend to spend spend spend when i retire. i've worked hard enough for my retirement, whilst many laze around doing nothing. And under the current rules a person does have to sell their house to pay for their care.

i would like to see free bus passes and winter fuel payments restricted to those on minumum pensions. with families currently bearing the brunt of spending cuts i don't see why better off pensioners couldn't do their bit as well and it would be cheap to administer.

If the Government that introduced it really wanted it to be guaranteed they should have put steps in place to guarantee it instead of counting on their successors to work it out.

Of course NI pays for other things than the old-age pension. It is not ring-fenced. But the people contributing to the NI pot were, from the outset, specifically told that it would entitle them to a decent state pension at the end. The less NI you put in, the smaller the pension you got out. That's the difference between NI and the other tax we all pay.

NI has never gone into a special NI fund out of which Pensions and Unemployment are paid. it goes into a big pot with all the other money.

For me it is not about means testing.

The Government deducts NI from my salary each month. I have an understanding of what that contribution is used to fund. It is different from the income tax which they also deduct - they also do whatever they want with that.

Clearly, going forward, a Government can change what NI funds all they like, but what they cannot and should not do is change what the NI contributions I have paid to date have secured. That would be cheating me out of benefits I have earned.

Many married woman who did not pay suffient NI contributions made additional lump sum contributions to buy back their rights to state pension. Would we now tell them "thanks for the money but actually, we are no longer going to provide you with the benefits"? I cannot see how any Government could do that, it breaches all of the rules of fairness and natural justice.

NI does not 'entitle' you to anything. NI is just tax.

Peoples record of NI contributions are used to ration benefits.

laurie - your idea about means testing pensions doesn't sound too far removed from robbery to me. people have paid for a pension for years via NI - its just not acceptable to then not provide a pension in return.

Inheritance tax is a good thing as it reduces the number of people with loads of money who haven't earned it.

@Lauriefairycake.... you may wish to exit the world with nothing and there are plenty who agree with you. Some spend their retirement taking lavish holidays and end up leaving nothing to their families. But some of us work hard & save hard so that we can not only take care of ourselves but also help our kids have a good start in life and help them out with things like further education, getting on the property ladder and so on.