To think that if you will not even look look at this pie chart regarding the welfare spend from last year you have no right to comment?

[MadameDefarge]

THE FACTS

I will now try and find a breakdown of figures of those on long term benefit JSA/IB etc.

Then perhaps we could all have a reasonable discussion.

"Our welfare state promised pensions and we have a duty to fulfil them to those that were promised."

It also promised incapacity pensions, but those were made means tested last year. I'm not exactly in a position to make alternative arrangements, being already sick.

I'm not leaping to suggest means testing for old age pensions. But I'm fed up to the back teeth of the hypocrisy of one set of rules for those over 60/65 and another for those under.

I totally agree that means testing the state pension will only make things worse. What would be the point of paying into a private pension. Although it will soon become compulsory. People who are above the personal tax free allowance threshold when their state and private pensions are added together will pay tax like everybody else. I don't think they will ever means test the state pension.

If you decided to go the means testing route, you would probably have to make it compulsory to pay into a pension. I believe some countries do. After all, this it wouldn't work because people wouldn't bother is the same sort of point that people make about what's the point of working if you get the same on benefits. Or why bother saving if it's all going to go on old age care?

The pension debate is massive and probably the biggest challenge that any government, of any persuasion will face. There are going to be so many of us.

Nkf- it's a good argument for a basic 'citizens wage', whereby everyone is paid a very basic amount and then anything you earn is an extra. Because as you say, it's a perverse incentive when people are virtually no better off working than they would be not working, or working a lot fewer hours. That's why a means tested pension would be a bad idea- how many people are seriously going to pay into a pension when they would be virtually as well off by saving nothing?

I think this is a really key point right now, because many ordinary people feel they've been sold a lie: work hard and you'll be rewarded, work 40 hours rather than 20 and you'll be rewarded proportionately, pay into a pension and you'll get rewarded etc etc

People have wised up to it. You can't year on year expect people to do the sensible thing, work hard and save and keep them doing that when they realise they aren't any better off. I think we're in for a key turning point .

nkf - thought that it was compulsory to pay into a pension for most workers - its called NI?

Wouldn't the value of the Citizens Wage fall proportionally though? Because most of us would work and earn more and we could then earn more? And you would have the people on the CW unable to buy as much and, eventually, unable to afford market rate housing. Or maybe not? I really don't know because economics isn't my strong point (understatement of the century.)

NI guarantees you the basic state pension, I think. And many women won't get that because of time out to raise children. But it's not much money is it? It's not compulsory to save into a pension. But it will soon be made compulsory for employers to offer one.

Sorry - re: Citizens Wage - we could buy more.