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. A) It's counted as part of the welfare/benefits budget - so when you hear that we spend x% of GDP on benefits a huge % of that is pensions. B) National insurance stopped covering the cost of the state pension a very very long time ago.

So what? It doesn't make pensioners scroungers any more than lone parents or disabled people or unemployed people. We're a rich country. We should help each other out.

heron - Ditto what Bourdic says, and additionally think on the fact that, before the welfare state was founded, you would have had to support your father too.

Some people who are now retired like my father, started working at 15 years of age. He worked for 50 years before he retired. Those were the days when many people stayed in the 1 job most or all of their working life. If you were on a half reasonable wage and paid into an occupational pension scheme for 50 years, you would get a decent pension.
Most people working now will not build up anywhere near 55 years of working age to retire at 65.

The elephant in the room is house prices.

I would consider an income of 20k a year and no housing costs to be very well off, but I guess its what lifestyle you are used to.

Most working people seem to be on about the same but spending half on housing, some up to 70%!

When I was on the dole I started crying when i dropped a dozen eggs in the road. I was spending 1.5% of my dole money a week just on bog roll. I do resent paying into a system that I feel failed me when I needed it.

I think there is a big difference here on what people earn.
And house prices are very high n the south and London, not the case everywhere. You can by our old house that is up for sale for £75,000. I loved that house.

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.

No, and I wasn't personally party to the contract earlier generations of pensioners made but I helped pay their pensions. The contract is cross-generational and by definition the same people are not payers and payees at the same time.

It's semantics isn't it?

If someone is arguing that a pension is not a benefit because they have bought into benefits bashing and don't want to be tarred with the same brush I have little sympathy.

If however they are saying the state pension is not a 'benefit' but a 'right' as that was the system they signed up to and participated in then I definitely see their point.

Where is that cleaty? Somewhere nice with prospects? A family home?

Can you link to a property like it?

We should be coming into inheritance of near that, I'm tempted to just move up north and buy somewhere outright.

What exactly is this "system that people signed up to"? I've been paying NI for 17 years, I've never signed anything or been promised anything based on it.

Definitely a contribution based taxable benefit just like it says in the DWP budget. Especially now it is a flat rate with no relationship to amount of NI paid in by any individual. The other defining characteristic for me is the government's ability and inclination to change the terms and conditions unilaterally and retrospectively.

If we had a citizen's income or less conditionality on working age benefits then the distinction would be less and imo more equitable.

It is a 2 bedroomed house. It is a starter home, the kind families with 1 or 2 young kids live in. We now have a bigger house. But very few people buy a house as their first house that is suitable for a family with teenagers.
House prices have risen where I live too, but not at the ridiculous rate as in the South and London. And we can get into the centre of London in 2 hours by train.

I briefly had a job organising voluntary support for the elderly and left because it pissed me off that people who were fit and well, living in a fully paid off house with disposal income for endless clothes, top quality food and day trips had the gall to put themselves on our books to get young people in the community to tidy their garden or empty their bins for no pay, young people with little to no hope of ever achieving the quality of life of the people they were supporting.

There were a few genuinely deserving cases too, but I got so fed up of hearing "I've paid my stamp" from people whose middle years passed through completely different social-economic circumstances than we are enduring at present. I have one elderly relative who worked part time for 30 years in two shopkeeping jobs and she managed to buy a house and enjoy 25 years (so far) of very enjoyable and luxurious retirement. Good for her, but not good that she rained judgement on those struggling to make ends meet today because she got lucky.

You must live in a well off area. I have also done the same kind of job in a poor area and had very different experiences.
But if the elderly people were fit and well and had money to pay for help, it doesn't sound like your project was reaching the right people. We had a criteria. People had to genuinely need help, have no one to do it for them, and not be able to pay for that help. Your post is more about a very badly organised service than anything else.

You're dead right, cleaty. That's why I only lasted 3 months there! The manager was deluded.

I live in a UK holiday destination where a lot of wealthy people come to retire, yet young local families can't dream of ever buying property, so not a typical demographic as you say.

It annoys me when projects like that get money, when there are a lot of brilliant projects closing because of a lack of money. And there are always people who take advantage of things freely offered, which is why criteria is so important.

YabuDabbaDoo - that is very very annoying. I don't know anyone nearly as bad but "being cute with your money" is a disgusting problem. We've had issues with it here and the harvest festival, people wanting food even through they have plenty of money for extensions / cars / holidays. It's just not on, and I know from first hand experience how difficult it is to live on JSA.

hetty couple of things here regarding your statement below

That is very unethical IMO. But I know plenty that do as "they've worked hard their whole life" when in fact they retired at 60.

First of all how can it be unethical to claim a CONTRIBUTION based state pension if you have other money or property it would be if someone was claiming income based (like having an olive grove in Greece perhaps)

And sorry IF I had been able to retire at 60 I would in fact have paid in for 45 years not ALL my life just 3/4s of it when I do get my pension I will have worked for and paid in for 51 years again not all my life but a bloody big chunk of it.

YabuDabbaDoo the 'social - economic circumstances' for a lot of us were not that much difference than young people are 'enduring' at present.

I started paying full NI at age 15 years before todays young people who leave school at age 18 or go to Uni (something I didn't have the chance to do when I was younger)

I paid full NI in the late 70s when I got married, when DH and I were renting and trying to save for a deposit for our own place having had to leave the area of London where my family lived, where my friends were and where my job was to be able to afford to do so.

I was paying full NI in the 80s when we FINALLY got enough money saved for our own place again having had to move out of the area of London where we were renting because we couldn't afford to buy there, I was paying full NI when our mortgage was 3/4s of our income.

I was paying full NI in the 90s when my DH was made redundant and he had to go to college to retrain as his profession also was redundant, and when as my salary didn't cover the mortgage and there was no such thing as Tax Credits we were using all our savings just to keep a roof over our heads.

Yes I feel for todays young but it wasn't a bed of roses for me, DH and 1000s of others either.

Sorry but I've had to accept in my mid 40s that buying a house is just never going to be a possibility for me, and zero hours contracts makes redundancy an impossibility too. If my job stops it just stops that week. I am "paying my stamp" all the while in the full expectation of never getting a state pension or indeed retiring at all.

YabuDabbaDoo But my DS 32 my niece 30 and my Nephew 28 are all home owners, all got good jobs (no zero hour contracts ) in fact I know a lot of younger people (I work with a good few) who are buying or have bought and no one has told THEM they are going to get a pension in fact even I am not sure I will get one and mine is only 5 years away.

Sorry you are in your mid 40s and in a ZHC job, but not everyone of your generation is in the same situation and not everyone blames the older generation for their circumstances.

My father drew his state pension very late in the day and worked full time until he was 77 (and died at 79). His state pension was taxed at 40% so he got 60% of it. I don't think that is particularly generous - about 4 yars of state pension with about half taxed and taken away from you when you've worked for the NHS for about 50 years !

It's just words though. I will similarly haveabout half of my state pension when I'm nearly 70 confiscated in tax so will get instead of about 150 a week about £75.

You need to pay national insurance for 35 years to get a state pension and lots of people buy years they have missed from their cash savings so it is not quite like any non contributory benefits.

I would favour abolishing a state pension entirely and just have some basic substistence payments for those who do not set aside enough for themselves and accompany that with a new legal duty in England for children to support elderly parents.

I would favour abolishing a state pension entirely and just have some basic substistence payments for those who do not set aside enough for themselves and accompany that with a new legal duty in England for children to support elderly parents

But what happens is the daughter of elderly parents does the caring usually. I don't see how you can enforce paying for elderly parents any more than child maintenance.

But there are elderly people in care homes, paid for by the state, who are initially put there as they are a danger to themselves and everyone else. But that phase in ageing can pass so that, perhaps, if someone is not a danger to themselves or others they can be rehabilitated into the home of their family with support from visiting carers, whcih would be much cheaper.

I think the bottom line is that we are no longer the wealthy country we once were, , and quality of life, except for the few (bankers/lawyers) is going to deteriorate - not to third world levels but perhaps, for example, not everyone will be able afford to own a car.

You mean if I deny myself things like a car and a holiday niw, and save the money for my retirement, you will not give me a pension, but if I spend every penny now (and get into debt) I will get "support payments" when I retire?

P.S. My brother does not live in England, so I guess only I would be expected to pay?

AuntJane I think that is happening now in Australia. The limit was say 50,000 dollars and anyone with less than that got state payments, so everyone started blowing their pension pots to be entitled to gov help.
How stupid are politicians sometimes for thsi not to occur to them!

No, and I wasn't personally party to the contract earlier generations of pensioners made but I helped pay their pensions. The contract is cross-generational and by definition the same people are not payers and payees at the same time.

This would be a considerably more persuasive argument if your cohort, if I have your age right, weren't likely to be taking out rather more than they ever contributed to the pensions of the generation before. Younger pensioners and people in their 50s and early 60s now. The contract you had with the previous generations, one which my age group were not party to however you slice it, is a rather different one to the one that you (plural) are seeking to enforce on the generations below you now. I do not claim to know what the solution is, but I do know that we're not going to find one without accurate depiction of the situation.