to think the state pension 145ish isn't a pittance but JSA at 75ish is

[ladygingina]

I commonly hear that the minimum state pension is a pittance from people. If that really is, then what does that make JSA that is almost half the rate?

But JSA is only a temporary benefit, whilst people are looking for work.
These people have the opportunity to go forward and earn a salary, whilst a pension comes at the end of someone's working life.

The difference is that the state pension is supposed to allow someone to live on it long term and to be able to afford some non essentials. Job seekers allowance is a short term benefit.
Also most people on job seekers allowance will be claiming other benefits to top up their income.

I don't think people are clamining extras on JSA. That's pensioners that get the extras like warm home discount, winter fuel and bus pass.

The point is the state pension is topped up to a minimum amount to live off while JSA isn't and claimants are demonized.

JSA is too low, and is close to useless for people who have been made redundant from a job that pays a decent wage and have built a life around having a decent wage.

The standard state pension is also too low, people that have paid taxes all their lives shouldn't have to struggle in old age.

People on both can claim extras, like housing benefit or council tax benefit or pension credit or child tax credits. It is not a competition.

The main reason the state pension is almost double JSA is because the vast majority of pensioners vote, whereas unemployed people are far less likely to.
It's as simple as that.

Of course people are getting more than JSA if they are running a household.

OP: do you have pernal experience of JSA?

I know someone claiming JSA. She is a SAHM and the DH earns 100k+.
Yes, she is sort of looking for a job, but really sees it as a 75 pw for nothing.
I'm sure she is not typical of claimants, but it's just an example.

A lot of OAPs seem to be demonised on here, oh and baby boomers.

Personal not pernal!

The basic State pension is £113.10. Most people who receive the State pension have paid into it in the form of NI over a lifetime of work. It isn't a 'free gift' for being old.
If you get an occupational pension as well that's all you get from the State and you pay tax on any pension income above the tax threshold, so as a pensioner I am also still a tax payer.
If you don't have an additional pension you can apply for top ups from the State.
You are not comparing like with like. JSA is intended to force people back into work. Of course this doesn't always work, because in some areas jobs are hard to find, but it isn't intended as a permanent solution.

Yes I do have experience. I went from a higher rate tax payer to JSA. Didn't get housing benefit as I bought my place. Many weeks I spent more on bus fares than the JSA provided.

I think that is it exactly, pensioners vote and unemployed less so. So easier to screw.

Paxtecum you NOT know someone claiming JSA who's husband earns six figures. Maybe she will gets contributions based for six months but that means she must have recently worked.

It's a bit shortsighted to complain about the wonderful benefits available to pensioners. DV you will be one, one day, so it is in your best interests to support benefits to pensioners, not denigrate them.
In the list of benefits we get you forgot to mention free prescriptions, which start at 60 even if you are still working.

Larry the pbenefits paid to pensioners now are already unaffordable, no ring fing way will they still exist in 30 years for me.

So what's your solution OP? At least you have the luxury of 30 years notice that you will have to provide for your own retirement. The current pensioners were told that their NI contributions would cover their pensions.
You still don't seem to grasp the concept of JSA being a short term payment.

Not only that, Chopchop but many of us lived our entire working lives knowing we would retire at 60 (women) or 65 (men) only to get there and find the goalpost had been moved. I did quite well out of it, getting my pension at 61 years 10 months, but friends (women) who are only a couple of years younger have to wait until they are 66.

Even the ones that retire at 66 will do quite well to be honest. 20- years paid for by the younger generation who have a less prosperous life to tool forward to

When my mum retires at 66 her and my dad will have paid in for 96 years between them so yeah they should get more money then people who have never worked or only paid in for a few years.

My dad got his pension this year most of his pension is extra because he worked more years and paid enhanced NI contributions so he would get a better pension, at the time my mum was on JSA that was stopped even though she had worked and paid in for 44 years because my dads pension that he worked and saved for took them over the income threshold, luckily at age 59 and in an unemployment black spot she got a job, when she retires at 66 she will have paid in for 51 years.

Pensioners deserve all they get and more

There are hundreds of thousands of people in deprived areas where there is no work, where they can't get to interviews, where there 'interview clothes' ran out a long time ago

For them JSA is a long term benefit that they have to live on as there is no work and it's a disgrace that it's so low.

There isn't other benefits for them - they're single, usually under 30, they're in tiny studios (the majority will be paid by housing benefit) and that 75 has to cover everything

Their gas, electricity, phone, food, Internet to get a job, all transport, all clothes.

Do people really think that electric and gas bills are massively cheaper in the shoddy standard of housing they might live in ?

We are incredibly careful in our very insulated and double glazed property and it's still £80 a month for gas and electricity.

Totally agree cake!

Let's not turn this into about state pension, that's really an all together different topic.

JSA is too low. When I was made redundant I had to claim it in order to get my redundancy insurance paid, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. It's virtually impossible to survive on £75 per week. Thankfully I got another job quickly, the process of claiming it and signing on every 2 weeks is the most demoralising thing I've ever experienced.

Don't forget ladyginger that people like my mum and dad have paid for the younger generations parents, grandparents and maybe even great grandparents pensions so if any younger generation dare to complain that they are 'paying' for my dads pension and my mums future pension they can check back to 1970 and work out which of their relatives pensions my parents helped to fund

The contributions for NI did not go to the people who paid them in. They go to pay for the generation befores pension.

We cannot afford people to retire and not work for 30-40 years. It's ridiculous that anyone thinks young people should be paying for pensioners who have retired for so long and have lived through the greatest prosperity.

We cannot afford to pay for people to not work and contribute if their healthy.

Every other country, every other time in history people work til they get ill.

It's just impossible to pay for people to live and not work.

I'm still waiting for a solution from the OP...
It was the OP who brought up the comparison with state pension so she doesn't get to decide that we can't now discuss that comparison.
If fewer people retire there will be fewer jobs for younger people.

Most people who receive the State pension have paid into it in the form of NI over a lifetime of work

state pensions (as with all benefits) are paid for by the current working, NI paying, population. Pensioners will have paid, via their NI contributions, their parents/GPs pensions. Whilst simultaneously benefitting from a swathe of things not currently available to the working population.

Frankly, I think that higher-tax rate paying pensioners (yes MIL, your DH and FIL, I'm looking at you) should have their benefits means tested, just like everyone else, and those solely dependant on the state pension should have their pensions raised, as it seems a miserable amount to live for many years. I'm buggered if I should be paying for the pension of someone who's income is higher than mine!

(sorry, that's not really answering your question)

Pensioners deserve all they get and more

I always find this a really bizarre statement - when i volunteered with the CAB I dealt with several single men aged 60-70. those who had reached retirement age generally had at least double the income of those who hadn't. a couple of those who were receiving pensions hadn't worked for 25+ years previously - why does a birthday make someone deserve money more?