When will people realise that pensioners have paid for their state pension.

[notsafeanymore]

Every time there is a debate about the cost of living pensioners get a bashing.
And some have also paid for a private pension.
It's people who have never worked that should be targeted first.
I'm not on about the disabled. It's people who are benefit cheats and have never worked.

Due to an aging population, I think a lot of pensioners will receive considerably more in state pension than they've put in.

I am not sure what my personal circumstances have to do with this, but have seen my retirement age climb by 7 years during my working life, and have made private provision and updated NI contributions to account for gaps. And voted for parties whose policies support the most people, not bollocks like the big society, etc etc.

pulling up the bridge? Erosion of public services through voting for parties who emphasis paying less tax. So younger generations have less chances. Taking further education from essentially free to a massive financial burden. Splitting up infrastructure and selling it off to free market forces, increasing cost of living which disproportionately affects tge poorest and even those who would be considered to be in well paying jobs. Creating about any move to review triple lock or winter fuel, despite significant economic research showing wealth in this generation. Brexit. Benefitting from buying council houses and then opposing development of new building.

before you come for me - I realize some people are struggling. Not all pensioners are spending their winter fuel allowance on wine. The situation is nuanced and the poorest should always be protected. And I have benefited from some of these things too -although my pension arrangements have significantly downgraded through my working life and I can only day dream about a final salary scheme.

Pensioners can also not help benefiting from things like house price inflation. But overwhelmingly this group vote for policies which disadvantage younger groups. So yep, they pulled the fucking bridge up.

This is true. Too often it is claimed that pensioners have "worked hard all their lives" as a group to justify making all sorts of concessions to them.

Not everyone has worked for their state pension.

I know people who never worked and still get a state pension / pension credit.

They should still get a pension though.

We pay the least in of any country in the EU.

The EU schemes you will be comparing the state pension to, involve contribution based investment schemes where people contribute higher % of their salary.

We all get the same, no matter what you contribute.

Yep, lost some pension there too.

That’s a very naive view.

The people you are talking about are the ones who pay huge sums of income tax and bankroll everyone else.

Someone on 125k pays 17x more income tax than someone earning 25k. On top of that their employer pays a further 18k employer NI.

The last thing you want to do is to encourage that cohort to lower their taxable income.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, and would need to look at the report, but on the face of it this is a very unfair comparison. Of course current working people are the contributors - where else could the money come from?! The beginning and end years of the average life are where almost all state expenditure comes in, so anyone who has only experienced one of those is going to look like they've not taken much but that's a function of age. The boomers, as a generation, were net contributors until retirement too.

OP successive governments HAVE been telling people about it. That’s why auto enrolments into stakeholder pensions became a requirement.
And the NI that you pay goes to all manner of things for present day spending. Not just pensions. It’s not a Christmas club you join.

I’m always struck by the thinking that people don’t ‘deserve’ a state pension. What’s the alternative? Would you rather see people destitute in their old age? Starve to death because they haven’t paid enough in? This is why it is a benefit rather than an entitlement.

The money spent on a state pension isn’t redundant spending. It allows people to remain economically active for a start. Pensioners prop up parts of the economy that others don’t. The grey pound and all that. It’s part of a complex macro economic picture. Same as funding childcare, schools, public transport. If everything was left to market forces there would be a hell if a lot of people suffering, the country would fall apart.

I wonder who will pay the next couple of generations their pensions since half of them seem to be too anxious to get out of bed, get off tiktok and get a job

A modest amount of means-testing that leaves middle-income people unaffected but targets obny the wealthiest would be ok.

You forget that it’s the wealthiest who can pack up and leave and the uk government gets precisely £0

What you are suggesting has already been played out and it left those who were in the middle and considered lower earners paying for everything.

My monthly income in my first job at 16 would have been enough to just about live on if I hadn’t paid out 33.3% income tax + NI, and union fees.
My take home pay for a 40 hour working week was £80 per month
My rent in a shared flat was £60 per month

Or here's a novel thought, they could pay for their own childcare for their own children that they chose to have the same as people who are drawing pensions now had to do.
No free childcare, and six weeks paid maternity leave. What a life of luxury we lived.

The government want more mothers in work, they get more tax back then 🤦🏻‍♀️

The government haven't started telling people this but I'm 40 and am 100% assuming that the state pension will be means tested by the time DH and I get there and we won't get a penny. It's simply not sustainable. Each generation doesn't pay for their own pension, they pay for the pension of people who are currently retired. With increasing life expectancy and fewer young people there aren't enough working people to pay for the pensions of retired people under the current system.

Also, there were times when it was possible to survive on one modest salary and still buy a house. My house was built in 1955. When I moved in a significant number were still owned by people who bought them in their early 20s, and lived comfortably on one salary while raising children. And salaries from jobs like manual labour, factory work and etc. Now they are priced to the point the people buying need 2 above average salaries to have a chance of buying.

@TheRealMagic no, you are misunderstanding.

www.resolutionfoundation.org/comment/the-system-has-worked-for-boomers-at-every-stage-of-their-lives/

I don’t disagree with this. But I do disagree that with the idea that someone like me who will have worked and contributed for 50 years shouldn’t get anything which is what some people would like to happen. Otherwise I wouldn’t have bothered saving to enjoy retirement.

I know. NI should be scrapped for 16-25 year olds. They would still have 40+ years of work ahead of them, so no way should they be paying for today’s pensioners, the majority of whom will be far better off than our young people could ever hope to be.
If NI was scrapped for 16-25 year olds it would make them far more attractive to employers and would give them a chance at a decent life. It would also help the NEET problem.

Also your NI contributions are always shown as being intrinsic to your predicted pension. Just look at the HMRC app

Oh I see - the poster misrepresented it a bit. It didn't say that boomers had always been net takers and compare that to the fact that current works are net contributors. It says that younger generations won't get as much back as the Boomers have, which is completely uncontroversially true. It remains true that each generation has to be the net contributors while they're in work, and the Boomers were to, as otherwise no one is and the whole thing falls apart. And obviously if there is any state provision at all then pensioners as a group will always be net takers for that period of their life, as you have to be seriously wealthy to be not working and a net contributor.

@Swissmeringue i’m fairly certain the only people who will get a state pension will ones without any assets and on universal credit levels. Houses will have to be sold, etc.
I don’t count the state pension in my calculations, and i don’t assume i will be able to retire before i’m at least 70.

How did they do that?

The state pension itself should not be labelled a benefit. It is what society pays when you get old and can’t work any more.

Why does that mean it should be not be classed as a benefit? It’s ludicrous to pretend it isn’t one.

There are more over 60s than under 25s now, it’s completely unsustainable. All governments know that but they know if they tell the truth they won’t get elected.

Yes of course pensiiners should get their pension. I was disappointed about winter fuel. I think that should be stopped for all but the poorest . The price of care snd carehomes needs completely rehauling. People are paying private providers huge amounts and their often money quickly runs out then the state is not only paying pension but also care fees to a non state business. There has to be another way.

How about we try to ensure everyone gets a state pension ? Work along the lines it was introduced for a very good reason. And it is a good thing to keep.
And expect our Governements who are elected to manage the Treasury pot well enough to be able to do so.
Instead, all you get on these threads are people almost cheerleading for the demise of it.
Come on people. Expect more from your leaders and better things for ourselves.

But it’s still more of an annual increase than most public sector workers get (and many privately employed workers too probably!)