To think the state pension is a benefit

[hettyGreek]

I've noticed alot of "The state pension is not a benefit" groups that have sprung up on Facebook etc.

I understand that these people "paid their stamp" and all that was asked of them. But this NI money was not put away in a saving account for them, it just went into general taxation. If it had of just been put away in a savings account the state pension would be far far less than it is at the moment and no triple lock.

Aibu?

Of course it's a benefit. Sure, the state pension is contributions based and you can get varying amounts depending what you put in, or nothing at all. Same is true of maternity allowance, and that's certainly a benefit.

Not that it really matters anyway, because even those people receiving some state pension who don't also get income based benefits such as pension credit and housing benefit will be in receipt of other pensioner benefits such as the bus pass and, for those old enough, tv licence.

As a matter of interest, we are told that the younger generation do not vote in anything like the numbers of pensioners. Now the baby boomers are retiring, does anyone know whether those under 50 are numerous enough to counter the pensioner vote even if every person aged 18-50 voted?

Riders of course they should receive their work pension, my issue is the state pension. The fact remains that this benefit is not taken from previous payments in and is from current contributions and therefore must be reviewed in line with other benefits.

It's not a benefit.

I sympathise with the contracts position. Unfortunately, those of us whose contributions now pay towards those contractually agreed pensions were not party to said contracts, and yet appear to have been roped in anyway. I would hope those benefitting from the aforementioned generous contracts would be sympathetic to my position as I am to theirs.

"The fact remains that this benefit is not taken from previous payments in and is from current contributions and therefore must be reviewed in line with other benefits"

I can't agree with that. The money paid in for ohers by the pensioners was conditional on getting a return when their turn came. It will all get stolen back when thy have to pay for their care, though.

Apart from those who never worked and never paid in. Not a good policy to reward the feckless.

My DM would be classified as a 'wealthy pensioner' and thinks the fuel allowance, bus pass and £10 Christmas bonus should be means tested. Finds it absurd that she gets it.

I have to say I would class the Government Pension as a benefit simply because you have to apply for it when you reach that certain age it is not paid automatically to you,I feel for the pensioners who are just above the threshold rates (by a couple of £s) for other help they are certainly not well off pensioners if they have no worthwhile private pension to rely on.

I find it laughable that people have an issue with pensions affecting democracy.

IMO the last Labour government bought votes for years bringing in unsustainable in work benefits which eventually bankrupted the country.

When state pensions were set up it was intended to cover the last x years of life. At the time of WW1 only a third of people were expected to reach retirement age.

By the 1940s that hadn't improved so much.

For those that did reach 65, women were expected (in the 1940s) to live another 14 years and men 12. That has now risen to 21 for women and 18 for men (see [http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/www.ons.gov.uk/ons/resources/scteol6572_tcm77-256167.png this] from ONS).

So on average, for every adult the government, when making promises to todays pensioners, expected to pay 4 years pension to everyone. That was how the retirement age was set. The government worked out how much they could afford to pay, and worked back from that.

It is only fair and proper that the state pension age has started to rise again. No one can ever replicate in the private sector what the state pension pays unless they increase their contributions considerably. NI wasn't just introduced to pay for pensions. It also paid for the NHS.

So todays pensioners paid for the previous generations final 4 years of life. Nothing wrong in demanding that from todays under 65s, but there is no entitlement to anything more than that.

Remember too that it is the votes of the over 65s keeping the Tories, the architects of austerity, in power.

<a class="break-all" href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/www.ons.gov.uk/ons/resources/scteol6572_tcm77-256167.png" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this

"Nothing wrong in demanding that from todays under 65s, but there is no entitlement to anything more than that."

Of course there is. They were promised "from the cradle to the grave". They already have to pay for their own care, I think that's enough.

Everyone pays tax. Even those getting JSA or income support. There is tax on almost everything.

State pensions are a benefit. Just like free bus passes, free TV licence for over 75s, free prescriptions, Eye and dental tests, winter fuel payments, free flu jab, council tax and housing benefits. Then there are all the support groups for pensioners and the charities that provide support too.

It is dividing the generations when support for one group is increasing and the other group loses out. Not just a little but an awful lot.

I think it is incredibly unfair over 65s are exempt from the bedroom tax. I have neighbours (over 65) who did nothing but complain their kids could not be housed by the council yet they live in a 3 bed council home and only need the one bedroom. The vast majority of social housing homes with spare bedrooms are rented by pensioners.

Things like this really really grate and my generation (I'm 31) are noticing we are treated as though we are second class citizens compared to retired folk. It genuinely is how we feel. We have had so much taken away whilst they have had pretty much everything ring-fenced.

I just want it to be fair and I wish they (over 65s) could see just how fortunate they have been to get free university education, raise a family and buy a home on just one income and my generation is struggling to do this as two income households.

Truth is we don't want anyone to suffer but we sure as hell want a fair society where everyone takes a hit when cuts are needed.

Free education for our children and free healthcare

These are benefits but they are ones that help society as a whole not just the individual. An educated country is generally a wealthier one and treating individuals eg through vaccination prevents the outbreak of serious diseases.

Collaborate - yes your analysis is correct. The idea that large numbers of people can live for 25 years after retirement on a generous state pension was never in the original calculations.

To understand what it means in economic terms imagine a man worked a full 50 years from age 15 until they were 65. They would have had to contribute 12.5% of their income over their whole working life to pay for a pension equal to 50% of the average salary they earned over their life. Note that does not mean 50% of final salary - 50% of career average.

Virtually no one did pay anything like that and add in the fact most women didn't work a full time job after having children yet will get a full state pension after their DH dies it really does not add up at all.

Public sector and company pensions schemes are also in a similarly underfunded mess. It is inevitable all pension schemes will collapse or promised pension payouts will be reneged on.

Many people forget that pensioners did not have the same "benefits" when they were young as people do today. There was no NHS until 1948 so a lot of today's pensioners would have paid for all medical treatment. Family allowance was only paid for each child, after the first until 1975 when each child qualified. Maternity leave legislation was introduced in 1975 - until then you had to leave work or were sacked and received very basic maternity pay. Jobs were not held open. National Insurance does not just help to provide retirement pension - it is used towards other benefits which have been introduced since its introduction.

Of course there is. They were promised "from the cradle to the grave". They already have to pay for their own care, I think that's enough.

1. They promised to pay a pension what was calculated to be the last 4 years of everyones life. They are entitled to no more than the same from the generation that follows them. This being a generation denied benefits, free tuition, and having benefits cut, while the elderly see their income increased.

1. They are the generation that first decided they had no obligation to care for elderly family members. My parents lived with their parents and grandparents. We never did.

Those pensioners that did not get NHS, child benefit for first child and maternity leave etc are now in the older pensioner age group. The baby boomers did get all those things and it is the sheer numbers of that cohort that threaten to break the system.

"They are the generation that first decided they had no obligation to care for elderly family members."

Massive generalisation and a load of bollocks to boot. My grandparents were cared for by family members as were my and DH's parents until they needed nursing care in a hospital.

Strictly speaking, from a legal point of view and as far as government statistics are concerned, it is a benefit.

However, it differs from other benefits in that, very broadly speaking, people have earned their entitlement to it by working for 30 or 40 years. For that reason, there are two contexts (common political conversations) in which it is not fair to conflate it with other non-contributory benefits:-

a) When talking about people whose main source of income is "benefits". I would not say someone receiving a state pension (and nothing else) was "on benefits".
b) When talking about the cost of welfare generally. Although the state pension appears as part of the overall benefits bill in governments statistics, those who want to defend other parts from cuts by pointing at the amount spent on pensions do not have a valid argument. The pensions portion is owed due to promises made to people who (mostly) contributed, other benefits are mostly non-contributory and government of the day has more discretion to alter them.

Those pensioners that did not get NHS, child benefit for first child and maternity leave etc are now in the older pensioner age group. The baby boomers did get all those things and it is the sheer numbers of that cohort that threaten to break the system. I am a baby boomer. Yes I had the NHS, but I did not get child benefit for first child and maternity leave. I had to leave my teaching job 14 weeks before my baby's due date. I received basic maternity pay and my job was not kept open for me.

My mother is in her eighties. She gets pension.

How dare you say that her generation "get everything" - and the younger generation "have nothing"

She was a teenager before there was any free medical or dental treatment - and even then there was not a lot. Her sister died because they could not afford the doctor until too late. She has health problems that could have been fixed in childhood - if there had been the money.

She left school at 15 - higher education was not an option. Her primary schooling was part time as the school was bombed.

When her dad was ill there was no sick pay - the family did not eat.

Her dad died - work related illness - the older kids, (15 years upwards) - had to support the family. No benefits. You worked or starved.

Would you give up your NHS, your schooling, your JSA, WTCredits, Housing benefit, imunisations, maternity leave, sick pay??? Would you? No, thought not. But it was ok for them not to have it. And now you want all of this for you and your kids - quite right too - but you want to take away the pension from those who never had a fraction of what you have.

And it is hardly enough to live the life of luxury on anyway.

The fact that money was not put away to fund the pension is neither here nor there. Even in a purely commercial context, the concept of an IOU exists. If you do something for someone in year X on the understanding they will give you some money in year X+30, then as long as they are around and solvent in year X+30 you would expect to get the money. If they didn't put the money aside, or invest it, or even if they were insolvent one or more times along the way would have no bearing on whether they should pay.

Would you give up your NHS, your schooling, your JSA, WTCredits, Housing benefit, imunisations, maternity leave, sick pay??? Would you? No, thought not. But it was ok for them not to have it. And now you want all of this for you and your kids - quite right too - but you want to take away the pension from those who never had a fraction of what you have. Hear hear.

I find this a bit of a pointless argument tbh as it is already recognised that defined benefit pension schemes are unsustainable and they will soon be completely phased out for new joiners and auto enrolment in defined contribution schemes is well underway already. Yes pensions as they have been are costing too much money, but no way will this be solved by means testing the state pension.

We live in a democracy so a universally unpopular idea like abolishment of £6k per year for everyone of retirement age is just not going to be something that will win any votes - can you imagine MPs voting this through parliament? Laughable.

In addition, for those of us, soon to be the vast majority of earners, who are contributing to their own private pension, it would be ridiculously unfair to penalise us down the road by saying that those who have saved for their retirement will not now be eligible for the first £6k, whereas people on benefits or those that didn't bother will still get it, what a great incentive!

If you get something from the state then its a benefit. The NHS is a benefit. you pay for it through taxes to the state, you then get it back as a service benefit. Pensions are also a benefit under this definition. I always laugh when my daily fail reading parent moans on about "people on benefits" when they receive a pension, free bus pass, tv licence, winter fuel payment etc all of which are benefits.

i am in my 50's and fully expect not to get any state pension. its unsustainable but doing something about it would be toxic from a voters point of view.

originally pensions were set at 65 for men when the average lifespan was considerably less so less than 50% of the population reached pensionable age. successive govts should have altered the age of pensions to fit the change in demographic and age of death but they didn't. so now almost 70 years on with improved life spans, really the pension age should be set at around 78 - 80 if it were to keep with the ethos of the original decision on pensions. but can anyone see that happening??