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..

What? I don't get any of my late husband's state pension.

Rewarding those who contribute nothing is this country's expertise.

But the 5/10/20% has no meaning in what they get back as it's a career average pension so for NHS 1/54 of your yearly salary goes onto your pension.

The reason the employers contributions are so high is because they are funding today's pension recipients. I do agree that it needs reviewing though.

I agree!
i would be even more aggrieved if I had never had children
sick to death of paying for other people’s lifestyle choices, I’m afraid I would stop paying in to a private pension

But realistically if you don’t pay people to survive because they haven’t paid their NI contributions what will happen to those people?

I don’t agree. I’m 47 and have worked without any break in employment since 16. My first maternity leave was 6 weeks, second was 3 months and for my third child I had 6 months. Outside of that I’ve worked full time apart from the 3 years I was completing my nursing degree ( I worked 22 hours a week on top of placements and studying). I’ve willingly paid into a system that I believed would “pay me back” at retirement.

Means testing has been rejected in the past because it discourages people from making their own provision for additional pensions and savings. You could get rid of the triple lock, so that the dtste pension was linked to average earnings and set a level at say 30-40% of average earnings. You could make pensioners pay national insurance as was income tax. You could remove some of the free stuff that over 60’s get, such as free prescriptions. You could educate people on the importance of making your own provision to augment the state pension and push employers to increase their employee-matched contributions through their auto-enrolment pension schemes. You could require pension schemes to merge so you get greater efficiencies and lower costs. You could set up a Pension Commission to examine all options and build on the work of the previous Labour government’s pension commission that set up auto-enrolment while increasing the state pension.

As @Bumblebee72 said ‘Rewarding those who contribute nothing is this country's expertise.’We have created a culture of dependency.

The constant demands on those who did/do work is what is truly annoying people. It is the middle income earners who have been constantly squeezed over the past years who always end up paying.

That doesn’t answer the question of what will happen to people who don’t qualify for SP if you don’t pay them a base level amount?

Who do you think should pay @Glowingup

Because the principle is we all pay in, we all get out.

They will pay tax on it so it is means tested, £6000 of tax if they have 100k private income as well.

They will have paid much more NI than a low earner during thier but will get the same pension and they will be paying income tax on the rest of their income.

It is politically going to be much easier to have a universal pension element in combination with a poor person element than take away the universal element entirely.

How much do you earn, how much do you put in your pension, and how much will your private pension pay?

The state, as currently happens through pension credit. Are you a politician and unable to answer a question or something? What happens to the people who currently get pension credit if they can no longer receive it?

I'd create hall of residence style accommodation, the rent would be paid by the state and you'd get an allowance for good. It's good enough for students. This would free up larger social housing for families in need.

So return to poorhouses then? I just wanted to know if that was what was being argued for and it seemingly is.

Why?

So the people who have been contributing the most get punished while millions who have not can continue to receive UC?

Are you saying poor houses are like halls of residence? 😁

And who pays the state? Of course it’s people like me who have worked for more than enough qualifying years.

I am not a politician but I am one of the squeezed middle who is really angry at goal posts being constantly moved and always having to pay more and more in tax.

We have created a culture of dependency and benefit reliance.

In a way. I think there needs to be a two tier system where you get a benefit for contributing - otherwise we'll just continue this journey of more and more people opting out of the real world and just living on the state.

What’s your definition of fuck all?
Presumably you’ve used some sort of healthcare in the last 29 years

This seems to be the model now.

Being excluded from childcare help has completely radicalised many people I know. We thought we were living in some sort of social democracy where we paid in, and in return all received mutually beneficial services.

Well it turns out actually some of us are just here to fund them, but aren’t actually able to access those services. Brilliant.

Wouldn’t surprise me at all if pensions went the same way. I’ve always been pretty left wing but am starting to get very disillusioned with what exactly I’m paying for…!

Quite - too many people seem to see getting a top up from the government as the norm that everyone does. This has to change back to state support being a short term safety net.

How much tax do you think those people have paid to fund benefits, to fund people deliberately working fewer hours to get UC?
they will continue to pay high rate tax on that private and state pension, therefore continuing to fund the welfare state

where does everyone actually think all this money comes from?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-public-spending-was-calculated-in-your-tax-summary/how-public-spending-was-calculated-in-your-tax-summary

it isn’t the biggest single outlay unless you decide to manipulate how to allocate welfare and health into smaller categories

the thread premise is incorrect ? Or deliberately misleading ? Goading ?

I think it will become means tested at some point as the Government has to find more and more ways to get money from the few who are productive to give to those who opt out of life.