To think state pension needs to be means tested , most sill claim way more than put in due to life expectancy. The current simply can't afford it anymore, it's out biggest single outlay..

[wishedforchild2016]

Aibu ?. Interested hear opinions for/against..

'The state' doesn't have money of it's own. When you say 'the state' should pay, you are saying individual tax payers should hand over more of their salary in tax to pay.

That's an individual, who will have less money to buy things for their family, because instead the money they have earned is given - by the state - to someone else to spend on themselves instead.

What happens to the people who currently get pension credit if they can no longer receive it

I think that like most European countries we should have a very minimal state pension which everyone is entitled to and is not means tested (in most places that universal pillar is about the same amount as the UK state pension) and a second pillar of state pension which is based on how much you've paid in over your working life. That's fair - and in line with what NI was set up for.

If we did that, we could change the the triple lock to double lock for the universal pillar. The reason for the triple lock is because our pension is so low and they wanted to increase it - but it's appropriate and in line with other European countries to only increase the contribution-based second pillar (which we don't currently have at all)

I think that working age benefits should also be cut right back. 10 million people are on working age benefits - that"s 22.8% of the working age population. There's no way that 22% of the population can't work / can't work more hours.

The UK is appalling for disincentivising work. It's morally and economically wrong.

I really don’t know but several things need to get in the bin

• The idea that everyone over about 62 “has worked hard their whole life” despite the blatant evidence to the contrary such as incomplete NI record, no savings, assets or private pension.
• People are entitled to stop working based on their age rather than in their ability to support themselves (I’m talking people in their 60s/70s, not 90s/100s - significant numbers of 50-64 yos are economically inactive or working part time at the very time of their lives when they should be squirrelling away savings for old age)
• People who don’t work are entitled, at the states expense, to the same standard of living as those who do - they aren’t.
• Older adults must stay “in the family home” despite not being able to afford to. People attach a huge amount of sentiment to this. Realistically if you haven’t made any provision for old age you may only be able to afford shared housing - same as young people on low incomes.

Obviously population demographics, expectations, pensions and contribution rules have changed several times over the years since the current 90s/100s claimants and the new contributors in their teens/20s, but the length of time needed to gain a a full NI record is woeful compared to the 51/52 available years given that the government still pays the stamp for those who are sick or have young dc and you can make voluntary contributions if your family set up means you choose not to work outside of the home. If you don’t pay NI and don’t make alternative provision then you will be poor - very poor - and there is no way of avoiding that.

Yes essentially. A place to live where you can’t afford to live independently, especially when elderly and infirm. Are you saying they are not?

Please prove the “assertion” that it’s the biggest spend ?

And millions of people of working age claim benefits. Maybe we should focus on that before targeting pensioners, most who have paid into the system for most of their lives. It should be made compulsory for people under 40 to start paying into a private pension, and the state pension to then be reduced as a result for those people once they reach state pension age. That would then allow people to take early retirement if they’ve made allowance for that by paying into a private pension, and which would then have a knock on effect freeing up jobs for others, because AI is going to have a huge impact on employment in the coming years. I also think the NHS should be pared down with compulsory private health care contributions - we can no longer afford to be nostalgic and cling on to a system no longer fit for purpose. I’m old enough to remember when the NHS worked well, but it really is dire now and a huge money pit which doesn’t touch the sides of what’s wrong with a system which no longer works.

Have you accidentally taken the figure that include all teacher and army and civil service pension s as well as state pension ?

Tax payers, same as always. I’m not sure why people are in such a knot about this. You might see a tiny increase to your tax bill but likely not substantial. Nobody is raiding your savings or selling your house. You will be fine. You are just angry because it’s “not fair” that so and so has contributed less than you and now gets a subsistence level payment to survive. It’s the politicians who work out how public money is distributed, not private individuals. You will be just fine if you have your house and your private pension.

And what is wrong with that? Do you not think it is good enough for students? Should they all get a tax payer funded house? Loneliness is a massive issue for the elderly - another issue solved. .

Yeah okay. Probably said by someone who never has to end up in one. They strip you of dignity and there’s a reason we stopped them a long time ago and moved to a welfare state. They are okay for students but not great and most live there for a year before
moving out. I’d liken them to prison cells in terms of lack of privacy and autonomy. I’d be devastated if that’s where I had to live.

Out of interest is it only the lazy and feckless that end up in these places or is it also the sick and disabled, who couldn’t contribute?

It's not the biggest spend at all.

People sometimes combine pensions with out of work benefits and social .care, to give one 'Welfare' total.

Conflating those very different things is a way of hiding how much welfare dependency costs us all.

The state currently funds out of our taxes:
£242 billion on health
£162 billion on welfare for working-age people and children (Universal Credit, disability benefits (DLA, PIP), and housing benefits for working-age households and children.)
£138 billion on the state pension

Sounds fine to me. Alternatively, you could move in with your adult children? This thought alone might be enough to motivate everyone to be more productive in the workforce.

This has been the solution in most societies for most of history.

With charity filling in the gaps - but individual, rather than state-organised (which has resulted in it expanding, as all state institutions do)

The last 100 years are a very odd anomaly - a socialist experiment which was slower to fail than communism, but just as doomed and for exactly the same reasons.

Because socialism causes disincentives and inefficiencies, and eventually makes absolutely everyone poorer.

Many years ago, my dm told me not to pay into pensions as the government will find a way to take it off you.

I don't agree with means testing. Edging towards communism.

It's ridiculous those whom have worked, paid taxes, done their best to enable themselves to retire, and pass on their wealth to their kids/ saved pension money, should be penalised. What a tremendously stupid idea which I am unlikely to suffer in silence.

Yeah see if you’d like it if it happened to you. It’s well recognised to violate privacy and dignity to force people to live in close proximity to strangers. What about the very large number of people who have ND or disabled children, where the option of just moving in with them as adults is not going to exist? Plus the increased risk of abuse forcing living arrangements on people. Most adult children would not let their parents move in with them and what of the case of two only children marrying - they could have four adults living with them in old age.

I've lived in a hall of residence? It was nothing like you describe.

The socialists should have thought of that before bleeding the working population dry. Maybe... just maybe... if they stop stealing so much, then a welfare state will continue to exist for those who genuinely have no other options.

Gosh, what are we asking university students to put up with - and being charged over £200/ week for the indignity?!

Fuck me, I’m mid-40s, pay into a private pension, and genuinely can’t afford to contribute more until the mortgage is paid off which is another 15 years to go.
To match the current state pension, you’d need a pot of around £250k. Mine’s nowhere near that.
Most people I know (28–52) pay 5% into their workplace pension, employer throws in the bare-minimum 3%. A couple opted out entirely because they literally can’t afford it.
If all goes well — health, job, luck then I might reach £300–350k by retirement. That’s what, £15k a year? Add the state pension and I’ll still be below the “comfortable” level (which is about £40k/year — i.e. a £1m pot 🤡).
Remove the state pension and it’s not “dignified old age,” it’s “assisted dying might come in handy.”

And this isn’t just me. It’s everyone I know

Aren't all of these developments for the elderly - be that McCarthy Stone or or care homes, effectively halls of residences for the elderly anyway?

Yes well all those tiny increases over the years have made us angry. And there are a lot of angry people who are fed up with all the ‘tiny increases’ because over the past 20 years those increases have eroded our spending and saving power.

I have worked hard for my house. I worked hard to pay my pension contributions and made private pension contributions.

but the squeezed middle are forever having the goalposts moved because we are ‘paying’ for those who haven’t planned or prepared or those who are benefit dependent

why do you think the increases have been tiny? Plus we have all been subjected to fiscal drag.

Halls of residence are really expensive now (not everywhere)

You literally have private equity companies running them for profit and rents increasing.

Im absolutely sure the return if the poor house would be private investors generating profit from tax payers. It would be children's homes all over again..

Yes McCarthy Stone is basically a hall of residence but for wealthy pensioners.

Which is all very well when a fair days pay pays for the basics. The reason why the top ups were brought in was to subsidise businesses not people. Let’s keep that at the forefront of our minds.

You don't have to. At 65 you can keep working. Alternatively you can use the 45 years before to do something difference. Pensioners complaining about a lack of income is like a farmer wondering why he couldn't harvest wheat in the summer despite not planting it in the spring.