Why don’t Labour get it?

@bowlybowl Yes you are quite right all skivers should be treated the same regardless of age or excuse. We ought not to be taxing workers to fund the lazy who organise easy lives for themselves.

@Bumblebee72 unemployment benefits are much lower than they were in the past. How can you have 100% employment?

@JillyJoy why are only NEETs who don't work breaking the social contract? Why not the same for a 30 yr old or 50 yr old?

Spurious health claims mainly.

Again are spurious health claims linked to a specific age?

Reduce or remove their benefits.

I think it should be the same policy regardless of age.

@Gingernessy I didn't see anyone say the state pension should be completely abolished, I can't see that happening and it wouldn't make sense

Ok but why not the cut the unemployed bit. You have to start somewhere. Why not start on the easy bit.

@bowlybowl Recently the figures for NEETS were published, they were high, these are some of the people who are breaking the social contract. Spurious health claims mainly.
Reduce or remove their benefits.

No not pausing the triple lock but others on this thread seem to saying the state pension should go full stop.

@Gingernessy a pittance? how do you quantify the cost of social housing? particularly when a large proportion of UC is based on housing costs?

I appreciate life is hard for many now including belueve it or not some older people but it means we all need to make changes. Not just start a money grab on anybody over pension age

But changes have been made to the working age population, they are getting poorer, are you not aware of this?
Do you really see pausing the triple lock as a money grab?

So they are not just "takers" but also contributo

It's the net impact though, many people who pay tax are still net recipients.

However the whole recipient and contributors argument is facile imo. Obviously an ageing population means more net recipients, it's the changing demographics that have created a problem or rather that lack of planning.

It is the young who don't work who are breaking the Social Contract

How so @JillyJoy?

Unemployment figures are not historically high.

Of the 9m ish economically inactive the vast majority of the under 25s are students (2.2m)

The majority of the 25-49 yr olds are sick or have caring responsibilities (2.2m)

The largest group 50-64 are mainly comprised of illness and early retirement (2.6m) The early retirees are not from higher income brackets.

What gets forgotten is that as the pension age increases a larger proportion of the working age population will fall under the sick category as not every 60 yr old will be capable of still working.

Just to repeat - pensioners are taxed on their state pension if the total of their pensions puts them above the tax threshold. So they are not just "takers" but also contributors.

All a pittance compared to the amounts paid in UC tops etc.
I appreciate life is hard for many now including belueve it or not some older people but it means we all need to make changes. Not just start a money grab on anybody over pension age

Who is?

I'm not a boomer but hubby and I went without holidays, nights out, clothes etc to be able to buy our home.

Completely normal, you are not a unicorn.

Boomers raised there children without tax credits/UC/childcare support so maybe we can stop all of them and the state pension and even things up whilst saving a fortune.

The above are not universal benefits so plenty of today's working families don't get them. Let's not forgot more social
housing in the past, family allowance which wasn't means tested and mortgage interest rate relief....

Crikey you have a whole swarm of bee's in your bonnet don't you!
I'm not a boomer but hubby and I went without holidays, nights out, clothes etc to be able to buy our home.
Why should we get less than those who spent there money un-wisely.
Younguns will be old one day - what do you envisage happening to older people who can't work when you've removed the state support.
Every generation had its hardships young people should remember that. Boomers raised there children without tax credits/UC/childcare support so maybe we can stop all of them and the state pension and even things up whilst saving a fortune.

It is the young who don't work who are breaking the Social Contract. (I accept that there is a small number who cannot work).

People always focus on unemployment but benefits for the unemployed are a tiny part of the welfare budget. The vast majority is spent on pensions and disability benefits.

And whilst it sounds popular to somehow force people to work, if you have ever employed people you will know there is a small percentage of the population who are completely incapable of holding a job. You can take their money away and they will just starve because they are completely incapable of the discipline required to do a job.

Agreed. But combined with this is the “single solution” deflection mentality e.g. cut immigration, triple lock, benefits etc. etc. ALL of which need to be done, not just one. We will all face the coming pain, deservedly or not.

Other European countries also fund their benefits with higher social security taxes for employees and employers but look at the outrage over labour increasing employers NI.

We have a very low birth rate 1.41 when we need 2.1 to maintain the population. I

Because in party because younger people can't afford dc, we offer very little support compared to other European countries.

We have one of the lowest old age pensions in Europe

@ElizaMulvil you need to read more about other countries pensions rather than listen to soundbites.

The UK has a much higher reliance on private pensions so overall income isn't that different.

And because it's a benefit it's flat whereas other countries base it on earnings. It's the maximum pensions in other countries that pushes their average up.

We have one of the lowest old age pensions in Europe. Many of today's retirees were working when there wasn't equal pay for women, ( eg the National Association for School Masters ( NAS) campaigned against equal pay for women and split form the NUT of this) or worse women were sacked ( eg banks) if they married. In addition because of the shameful 11+ exam most children had to leave school at 15 and had few opportunities to get qualifications ie O levels, A levels etc and well paid jobs. This particularly impacted on girls because in the main Grammar Schools were single sex so girls who got better results than boys at 10/11 had their life chances cut as there were roughly the same number of Grammar places for both sexes. Women were, of course largely prevented from getting jobs in trades. Also women who paid only the married women's stamp, got no pension at all in their own right but relied on approximately 60% of whatever their husband

There were far fewer places at Uni for women than men so eg about 3 colleges at Cambridge for women v 30 for men. Women were one allowed a fraction of the places eg for medicine etc., prevented for applying eg for Maths as women 'didn't have the right minds '. Prejudice against promoting 11ng women was rife ( until the Labour Equality Acts).

There was also little job security so dockers eg had to line up each morning and hope to be picked for work that day. ( The current Labour plans, minimum wage, sick pay from day 1, plans for job security etc are widely welcomed ( even by Reform voters).

We need people to pay their fair of tax. It is naive to think that the 'Rich' millionaires will leave in large numbers if they are taxed fairly. Of the multi millionaires ie 3,060,000 only 0.3% left in 2024. We don't know how many more or less arrived.

It is shameful that we tax multi millionaires so little ( if at all ) in this country. There are so many ways to off shore, use trusts etc to avoid taxes. Eg the Duke of Westminster, one of the richest men in the UK, has 9,884 £BILLION. He paid no tax whatsoever on inheriting his fortune because of the 'prudential' use of trusts etc. whereas most people will be paying inheritance tax on getting over £325,000.( £500,000 if you give your estate including your house to your children eg).

We have a very low birth rate 1.41 when we need 2.1 to maintain the population. In a few years the bulge population post WW2 will be gone. We desperately need young migrants to come to this country - instead of which some (ie Reform ) are demonising them even when they are refugees who are fleeing countries with awful regimes. Reminiscent of our Government refusing entry to WW2 refugees, especially Jews, fleeing the Holocaust. Migrants are ambitious, cheap ( we haven't had to pay for their births in hospital, education etc.) and desperately want to work.

There is nothing truer than the old saying 'a people that doesn't know its own history is doomed to relive it.'

The problem here is that the ‘right’ you are advocating for is to take more from the public finances than one put in. That’s a right that it is literally, logically impossible for everyone (or every generation) to avail themselves of, at least over the long term. The system must break if they do.

You advice is like fighting for the ‘right’ to put more carbon into the atmosphere than you take out. It works if some do. It fails if all do. It’s socially selfish advice.

They complain but do nothing, and start eyeing up other peoples' money.

It's shameful you have so much contempt for young people and a lack of understanding.

It could be a progressive reduction. 10% in month 1, 20% in month 2 etc. Most people would find a job as the pressure built.