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..

I don't see how you can means test the state pension without then creating a knock-on effect of people choosing not to save and to spend their money instead in order to still qualify.

What I would support is pensioners still paying NI. Or rolling NI and income tax together. It is ridiculous that NI has become a tax on working. Everyone should be paying.

I find it ludicrous that a working household earning say £40k a year has less take-home money than a household earning £40k a year in pensions because the workers pay NI and the pensioners do not.

@DavrosMy DH died before reaching pension age, but because of my age and the fact that I am entitled to a full state pension of my own I don’t get any of his pension. His potential pension was absorbed back into the Govt’s coffers.

@Mydoglovescheese interesting. I’m hoping I will get some of DH’s pension but I’m not counting on it

I don’t think it should be related to how much you pay in. This would result in either some pensioners receiving less than they needed to live, or on the flip side, much more. Neither of these is desirable.

But why shouldn't people who worked hard and paid in more get less than those who didn't?

I find it ludicrous that a working household earning say £40k a year has less take-home money than a household earning £40k a year in pensions because the workers pay NI and the pensioners do not.

The idea is that someone past state pension age is no longer eligible for jobseekers allowance, and have already built up their pension contributions.

That's what NI is meant to cover: out of work benefits and pension saving for contributors.

But the government have stolen our NI and merged it into general taxation - to fund people or aren't working or are working less than they could instead.

In fact why shouldn't someone who has paid in much more than other people during their working life recieve more state pension during their pension years? That's fair. They paid in more. It's what almost all European countries do.

So how do you supposed the old would survive if they never contributed enough. Live on the streets ?

They would work during their lifetime and contribute into the system in order to get a state pension.

The number of people dependent on state support isn't some kind of fixed number, which you just have to accept and hand over the dosh or else they starve. People change their behaviour based on policy.

Current tax and benefit policy discourage work, discourage entrepreneurialism, and encourage dependency. It isn't sustainable and it has to change. If the socialists don't realise and make changes, it will just collapse anyway.

State pensions should not be subject to means testing, as there are people who rely on them entirely, having no other source of income.

My very unsolicited long advice: Relying solely on the state pension for retirement income isn’t ideal. It’s better to seek jobs with occupational or company pensions while also building personal savings, private pensions, and investments. By combining the state pension with these additional income sources, you can maintain a comfortable lifestyle and good quality of life in retirement, as long as smart choices are made. Don’t forget to protect your assets, focus on essentials, enjoy life, and legally minimize taxes whenever possible.

I just came across awful comments about assisted dying for people before they reach pension age, labeling them as a burden to the state. I have countless arguments and lengthy responses for people who make such ignorant statements. Don't these people realize that, someday, someone who is only 30 years old might be seen as too old and already irrelevant?

It's not the first time I've come across comments like this and others along the same lines, unfortunately. There are countless ageist comments on Mumsnet because being ageist doesn't seem to be a problem and doesn't violate any rules.

Once the number of benefit claimants and or pension receivers gets to critical number the Gov can’t do anything without being voted out.

Assisted dying is a great idea for everyone else -I’m getting g on a bit and I notice people with the longest list of diseases, disabilities, terminal illnesses still going to and from hospital for tests, ops etc etc
I think in the end no one wants to go any earlier than they have to

That's misunderstanding life expectancy though.

Life expectancy from birth is lowered by high infant mortality, and life expectancy at age 65 is very much higher. Well before the 1950s, people who lived to retirement age could be expected to live well into their seventies and beyond.

This is from the office of national statistics...

In 1908 when the State Pension was first introduced for those aged 70 and over, a woman of this age was expected to live on average an additional 9.3 years, and a man 8.4 years (1901), meaning pensions needed to last around 9 years.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/articles/howhaslifeexpectancychangedovertime/2015-09-09

As a disabled person who works and gets no benefits I'm already feeling pressured by the assisted dying bill.

I work - I'm a burden on my colleagues, being "lazy" and increasing their workload.

I don't work - I'm a burden on society, being "lazy" claiming benefits and/or economically inactive

What the fuck am I supposed to do then...oh I see.... die, I guess.

Great 🤷

Which is a legacy of the last labour government getting so many of the population hooked on benefits...they did it for the votes, but now its preventing this labour government from actually improving anything. It'd be helpful if the Bliar Institute could help this government fix some of the problems it created, rather than introduce a digital ID card to line their friends pockets and create more problems :)

If it’s means tested it’s the high earners with savings and private pensions who won’t receive it, yet they are the people who have paid most in. I think in that case there will need to be an opt out. Thankfully won’t affect me as I’m only a few years off pension age.

Benefits claimants went up most under the last conservative government. Look at PIP.

I think it’s more likely that the age will rise rather than means testing coming in but I also think a lot of people in their 60s will struggle to work for various reasons so will still need state support. That potentially though is means testing by the back door without it being quite so controversial.

I’ve seen a financial blogger suggesting that it would be far more efficient to give every child
a lump sum in a pension at birth and then they’ve got 65 plus years of compounding in a pension account.

This. My MIL who worked five years her whole life and has almost £1m assets (mostly in savings) gets nearly £450 pm non means tested AA she doesn’t need and doesn’t spend!

They went up more with the introduction of tax credits under Labour, which were disguised benefits. 5 million people claimed WTC and / or CTC in the first year - dwarfing PIP claimants of which there were only 3.8m after 12 years :)

Behave.

I paid in from when I was 16. I had to wait 6 years later than originally promised. Why should I be penalised to subsidise those that never bothered to work?

Quite. We need to encourage people to contribute. If people choose not to do so they can't expect everyone to keep supporting them forever. So many people have lost any idea of personal responsibility.

I have a friend a year or two older than me who keeps telling me I might/should get something from my husband’s contributions (I think she might herself) but when I checked on gov.uk a while back it said not. I have recently received my advice re the state pension, as I will finally get it at the end of November, and my letter confirms I won’t. I think they must have changed the rules & regs recently maybe.