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..

YABVU.

Those who are getting it worked all their lives on the understanding that is what they would get.

When i started work, i was 18 and my expected retirement age was 60. I'm over 60 now and my retirement age will be 67. And i expect to get the payments that i was promised.

Oh, I think a lot of people do understand that.

Hence the "we need to accept we can't subsidise everyone" threads where, among other things, people have suggested that since it cost so much to look after disabled children and adults we could put them in asylums instead. The problem is, as the population ages, voters do as well and they are, (as a general rule not as individuals, less likely to see care for children and families as a priority and more likely to prioritise pensions.) Which isnt evil. Pensions matter. But the idea of writing a list of priorities and then "seeing how far down the list the tax burden will stretch" is very comforting because it means you can put (triple locked) pension right at the top and a list of descending priorities below it. Then people in their 40s and 50s who are (because of age) likely paying more tax but also thinking about retirement can feel quite comfortable arguing for lower taxes because "the burden on working people is too great. We need to make sacrifices" knowing that the sacrifices are less likely to hit them.
I am in that group myself. I pay a lot of tax NOW but as a child/young person I was a huge resource drain (for reasons that aren't relevant.) I benefitted from 90s spending on social care. If I hadn't been massively subsidised by the state I wouldn't now be a high net contributer to that same state and they would have missed out on all my tax revenue. I am happy to pay for those older than me to have the state pension. But not at the expense of slashing spending for those younger than me who haven't had the opportunity to contribute yet. It's pulling up the ladder behind you.
Noone likes to look behind them. So as we age, our priorities tend to be for our future selves. Not just pensions. Most people earn more the older they get. Lots of people like to imagine/work towards being rich. So people vote for tax cuts for millionaires just in case they one day become a millionaire. Or are opposed to inheritance tax rises because they might one day have enough to qualify and they want to leave it all to their children if that should happen. Or are fine with cuts to school dinners/youth clubs because they are not at school anymore so it's a waste of money.
But it's counterproductive because if you cut education budgets and funding for the poorest children those children are less likely to be able to pay taxes to support the next generation of retirees. And so on.

@persephonia I'm not sure why you've inferred that pensions would automatically be at the top of my or Indeed anybody's list, that wasn't my intention at all.

The whole discussion put me in mind of the recent consultation on local authority spending, on which I had some firm views. It wasn't until I read the consultation papers in detail that I realised just how dire the situation was, what was being spent in different areas, and what the consequences of cutting each area would be. As a result some of my views changed.

Pensioners are just as capable as anyone else of making dispassionate decisions. Perhaps more so, as they have a sense of what it's like to be young, whereas younger people don't have the same sense of what it's like to be old. Like anyone else, they don't necessarily make decisions based on self interest when they have all the facts. One of the reasons that some are defending their pensions so vociferously is that statements like 'we can't afford pensions' start with the assumption that pension spending must be reduced before anything else. Obviously this provokes a defensive attitude so I don't think it's a helpful way to start.

I agree divide and rule isn't great. It's just that this thread has come after numerous other threads all of which have a lot of posters insisting that we simply can't afford disability payments, NHS care for all etc. So this is one thread of many but it's notable how outraged some posters are that it's pensions on the theoretical chopping block.

I said "in general" because I didn't want to imply all people above a certain vote a certain way. But there are patterns. Once people become home owners they are more likely to support policies that benefit homeowners. Very large landowners willobby the government for policies that benefit them (IE that help house prices go up) so that might lead to more restrictions on building houses etc. It's also why politicians are supposed ti declare conflicts of interests because actually, being a landlord might well skew their opinions on renters rights.

Very few people think "Hah hah hah I'm going to be selfish". But naturally we are more likely to justify policies that we think will benefit us. We are also more likely to attribute good things in our life to hard work not luck. So if I don't think I will need to claim unemployment benefit or need to look after a disabled child (my kids are healthy well done me!!!) I am less likely to see those as a priority. If my children are all older I am less likely to want to pay for childcare or to really care if the government shuts down sure start centres or if youth centres are shut down because me and my kids won't need then. I don't want to think of myself as selfish so I can go "well, a lot of money is wasted by false claims" or "spending money on table tennis and flat cola for teenagers is less important than roads". And the daily Mail will feed into that by publishing articles about people with ADHD getting free cars. Or asylum seekers living in 4 star hotels that allows people to think they are only voting to cut resources from groups that don't need it.

If I own a nice house and have teenage/young adult children I am in a bind. I want house prices to keep going up because I will want to downsize later or leave it to my kids. But I can see my children will really struggle to get on the housing ladder right now. I would be furious at any moves that lower my house value. I also hate that my children are renting expensive flat shares they can no longer afford and can't buy anywhere themselves. So I blame migrants, government policy etc. Likewise, most people know inherently that as people live longer we will either need to portion more of the tax budget to pensions OR raise taxes. If you don't want to pay tax you pick the first option, but blame crumbling social infrastructure on an out group not public services cuts.

I agree about councils. They have been in dire straits for years. I think there needs to be a review of council tax bands as they have been out of sync with actual house values for years..but that will disproportionately affect people who bought a long time ago and are asset rich but don't have huge incomes.

@MontyDonsBlueScarf Sorry that last post was far to long. Basi, because everyone hopes to have more money in the future than they have now and because everyone hopes to grow old any self interest skews that way
20 years ago maybe it would have been in my direct personal interest to support better child mental health care. Or better access to learning for disabled children. Because my as yet unborn children might have needed it. They didn't, so now I can mentally deprioritise that. It's short sighted (because those sorts of policies have long tails in terms of unintended consequences)

It's not that everyone is incorrigibly selfish and unable to see the bigger picture. But the media and certain populist politicians do like to feed on those tendancies.

I strongly disagree.

You have to remember that the majority now pay less into the treasury than they receive out, regardless of the state pension, so why go for that instead of cutting the welfare budget generally?

If you're proposing that higher earners now forgo even the state pension, in favour of other people getting their share of what they contributed to it, that's a hiding to nothing. People would just stop saving for their own retirement or find ways of avoiding the means test catching them.

I'd be more in favour of scrapping the state pension all together and then reducing NI so that people can save more for themselves and if they don't, tough.

There's nothing equitable about means testing the state pension.

My idea would be if worked 10 years or more ,then don't get a state pension. Regardless of what status is when get to pension age.If not saved then tough. Only people eligible ,are people that never worked. Or the sick and disabled,but have be in receipt of pip at state pension age eligibility.The sick and disabled, exempt from 10 year rule as may have managed work earlier in life.

But as said ,need be in receipt of pip award when become eligible for state pension.
So tbc ,if worked under 10 years in your lifetime up till pension age then eligible regardless. Hit the ones who are due to retire in near future and prob worked 20/30/40 years and don't get pip ,claw some taxpayers money back through the state pension. This a fair solution. I'd love to see it implemented.

Huh? Is this a parody?

It manages to have all the disadvantages and nothing to commend it:

1. Heartless: leaves some people without any income at all or means to live
2. Inconsistent: working age people who have no income get Universal Credit, but retired people who have no income don't
3. Perverse:if you've ever contributed into the state, then regardless of ypur income you're excluded

But if they've worked 20/30/40 years they should have savings or private pension. So if they have no income that there fault .Maybe construct student like halls for them .And make automically eligible for food banks. Would save state so much money. Don't think means testing enough.

So a modern day version of the Victorian workhouse?

No not all , they would be 65 plus pension age. No work involved ,and food/drink provided.

But only for people too old to actually work.

Whereas those of working age - who could still change their behaviour - are still subsidised.

Nope, really not making sense.

And too heartless.

I'm all for increasing the lifestyle gap between those who work full-time in NMW jobs and those who choose not to work - but definitely not that.

Defintely not intended to be heartless ,but to help those most in need. Under 10 years worked , little pension provision. Sick and disabled , earning capacity reduced and unwell. Not worked at all , no private pension/savings so need the most help and need state pension the most. The rest have had plenty of time working and good health, to accrue savings/pension/assets(house for example). It makes perfect sense. Would knock fair chunk,off the 140 billion state pension bill.

Lots in other threads , quick to say cut support for disabled/unemployed /sen kids. Why not concentrate on cutting state pension cost ,apart from as ive highlighted those that really need it.

That wouldn’t really encourage people to do minimum wage jobs, or even just above. Or they’d do the jobs for 9 years 364 days and then retire ‘sick’. It is an absolutely hopeless idea. We need to be encouraging people to work and work for longer, so actually there is a much better societal argument for not paying pensions to people who haven’t paid NICs and providing them with workhouse accommodation if we (as a society) think this is okay.

But if they've worked 20/30/40 years they should have savings or private pension

If you haven’t worked in 40 years so haven’t saved then it’s also your fault. A small number of people are too sick or disabled at 16 that they will never enter the workforce ever but this is a very small number of people and not what the policy for the general working population should be based on. We need a scheme that reflects the reality of the majority - ie you have from 16-67 to make your contributions and despite having the odd period of sickness or unemployment, you will get the basics at the end, and you know it really is the basics so best save up alongside it too. Alongside this you can (and do) have a scheme for those who are sick, unemployed, pregnant or caring for children where the government makes your contribution so you don’t lose out.

Most working age people can and do work. Lots of people who are sick or disabled can still work, or only need temporary support. Someone may need months or even years of support while they don’t work at all due to a cancer diagnosis or an accident but aren’t out of the workforce for the entire 40 year period.

Someone shouldn’t be able to opt out of working for most or all of their working life and then collect a huge payment at the end that everyone else is working to pay for on the basis that a completely different person is too sick to work. Incentivising people to only work for 10 years or fewer out of 41 with £12k a year for possibly 30+ years and penalising them with workhouse accommodation and food banks if they work 11 years + is not a sensible policy by any stretch.

Unfortunately pensions are a big Ponzi scheme so will likely keep going with the current workers paying for the current retired population but really it should be a more personalised system where you are given your account and the government, all your employers, and you and your family/partner put money into and what you got actually reflects what you put in.

I agree - it would be like a budget McCarthy Stone.

YABU. People payin to cover those pensioners now, but with the expectation they will get a state pension

if it happened I would simply stop working and claim benefits to make a point as, I would imagine, will Lots of others

Your plan would directly affect me and many of the people I know and love…as well as many I don’t know or love!

Thousands of us will have worked the 10 year limit you have suggested, I’ll have worked for 54 years by the time I retire. By the time I retire I’ll have saved into a pension for 42 years but it won’t be enough! The state pension is a very important part of my pension plan.

I’ve saved as much as I can afford for as long as I can afford. Every penny saved has had competing priorities. Rent. Mortgage. Childcare (have paid over £75,000 on childcare over the years!). Supporting family members. Bills. Child costs. Supporting child at Uni.

Your suggestion is not a good one, at all.

The more recent posts almost sound like rage bait, or possibly an attempt to mirror some of the rhetoric on other threads about different groups. I am NOT troll hunting. But it feels almost like a weird sort of reverse thread.

Snap!

Bog off my state pension! I have paid in well enough to receive it, I have included it in my life plans, I am too old and unwell to change now.

Just leave it. You will benefit too one day.

Yeah, that’s going to make a huge difference 😂

What is being ignored is that anyone who gets a full state pension and also has a private pension will be paying income tax. My private pension is just over the personal tax allowance, so my state pension when I receive it will be 20% less in net value as I will have to pay tax on all of it. In effect, I am being penalised for being responsible enough to pay into a private pension.

No, people have paid NI all their working lives. It would be unfair to pull the rug from underneath them.

So you are still creating a culture of dependency surely. Those who haven’t worked get a state pension automatically. But if you have worked you don’t .

Guaranteed vote loser.

Labour keep droning on about those with the biggest shoulders bearing more of the burden. That is switching voters off