The state pension is HOW MUCH???

[BeatieBourke]

Call me stupid (fair) but I've just realised how much the state pension is. £800 odd a month (£185.15pw).

As a non-means tested benefit. For EVERYONE.

I'm generally of the opinion that benefits are too low and too punitive. I usually advocate for universalism. I understand that people have worked their whole lives and paid in, and deserve a retirement. And that having pensioners in poverty does no favours to the economy or other welfare services.

But £800 a month / £9k a year for EVERYONE?? So a widower in rented accommodation with no other income or savings, £800pm. A wealthy 68 year old who's earned a 6 figure salary, has a huge property portfolio and investments coming out of their ears that pay a fortune out in dividends, £800pm. Seriously?

I understand that no party, least of all the Tories (because tory voters as a population are older) will ever go after pensions because it would be unpopular (and older people vote more generally). But in a time when the country is supposedly facing a financial "black hole" and everything else has already been cut to the bone for the last 12 years, why the hell are we paying out state benefits to millionaires?

Maybe if pensions were means tested (with a fairly high and tapering threshold) there'd be enough to pay pensions for women at 65, and more for people who haven't built up huge assets, can't afford to live, heat their homes or eat a hot meal every day in their later years. I can see the (cynical) political sense in it, but no economic sense whatsoever.

AIBU?

wvw wants benefits but of course no one wants to pay for them

I've just received my pension forecast. As I neither work nor claim benefits (due to a caring role capacity), I'm 3 years short of a full pension, but have time to make it up if I can. The person I spoke to yesterday advised me that I would get taxed though, as I've paid into my NHS pension and other private pensions in other jobs I worked around my DC. Maybe I should just take semi retirement and cash in my private pensions before the robbing bastards take it all, anyway!

@MsPincher please provide the link to your figures where half would be saved ? Because your making that up
I work with pensioners regularly and not half of them are rich
You still not given a figure of which you think it should be means tested at
Also if people who pay for their care homes currently then have pensions taken away when the money rubs out who pays so that money is again got to be figured in your costs
You are looking at it too simplistic yet calling me silly
Things have to be costed taking into account all factors

Come on. My dps and dgps worked all their lives paying into a system. They worry about putting the heating on. They own their homes but need so many repairs will be difficult to sell. And if they sell, where do they live?

we are all on the same track and with luck will reach old age. When you’ve paid into the system all your life will you think of young people as propping you up?

old age ain’t for pussies as Mae West said.

@MsPincher people do get benefits if other money you are allowed a certain amount in savings so please get your facts right

People don’t get benefits under state pension age if they have other funds.

Of course they do. This is starting to sound a bit crackers now.

@Waynettaaa its what people will do if something like it was implemented as why not

Thanks but I have checked my facts. Women cannot be refused entry to pension schemes on the grounds of being women nor has that been permitted for many decades. Discrimination against part time workers is also prohibited and has been for decades

Oh you sweet summer child

Uc and most working age benefits are means tested. Stop gaslighting.

Lol. You too

@MsPincher you haven't provided your cut off yet though still , still stalling and not checked your facts on benefits and that you are allowed a certain amount in savings
Your never going to get a goverment do this it would be the end of the party

@MsPincher there mean tested but they can have savings , you really don't get it you claimed you could only get it if you had nothing , thats simply not true

Pincher by name. Pinched by nature.

@MsPincher also the poster before was not gaslighting in any way
I think your maybe a little over invested in something that will never happen
Your stand up for the big oil companies who could easily pay more tax , but want to see the old couple down the road suffer as they have a little too much

Eh?

It's a slap in the face when you work hard and try to provide for yourself in old age, then they just take it off you again. What's the point 😬

youre making stuff up now. The reality is that means testing state pensions would save way more than any additional tax from big business would raise. As I E already pointed out.

i understand you don’t want to be the one to pay for public services but what if everyone felt like that? Imo it’s fairest to stop giving money to people who don’t need it as a way to cut government expenditure

Do you think it one of Sunak's Spads after a few too many? It's embarassing.

1. Gets the facts about means tested benefits wrong
2. Doesn't understand how pension rules have been disproportionately detrimental to women over the decades
3. Doesn't understand that women are still having to fight discrimination, despite the Equality Act 2010, at HMCTS
4. What you said about fossil fuel companies
5. Ditto hammering pensioners with a few bob saved to fix the roof

It's not really going to fly as policy.

The reality is that means testing state pensions would save way more than any additional tax from big business would raise

Could you put up link that validates this reality?

@AutumnsCrow yes I did wonder , I mean they have messed up a lot already so why not go the whole hog and really loose by an absolute landslide
Cannot provide any figures either to back up claims so sounds even more like an MP

No, you're completely missing the point: what made so-called WASPI women uniquely unable to work until they were (in some cases as little as) 62?

I guess you felt it was 'fair enough' when the changes were first notified as it would impact you minimally? Just a year or two longer, rather than the seven additional years faced by so many of us?

I certainly didn't feel it was 'fair enough' that everyone's (except the unique so-called WASPI women) retirement age would increase to 67, including men. I always felt a meeting in the middle of, say, 63 would have been fairer for everyone. Obviously, fiscally that would not have been possible.

As soon as I became aware of the age increase to state pension age I made suitable arrangements to allow me to retire when I had always planned to do so. I made arrangements to retire at 55 with, now, a twelve year wait for SP, rather than a five year wait.

WASPI was the biggest ever misnomer for a movement.  All you were ever really against was state pension age increases <strong><span class="italic">for yourselves</span></strong>.   It was, apparently, fair enough for everyone else to work until 67/68/69, but not the <strong><span class="italic"><span class="underline">uniquely incapable</span></span></strong> so-called WASPIs. 😂😂

Incidently, I believe WASPI was the biggest ever misnomer for a movement.

All they were ever really against was state pension age increases for themselves.

It was, apparently, fair enough for everyone else to work until 67/68/69, but not the uniquely incapable so-called WASPIs.

No wonder no-one other than their own relatives ever got behind the campaign!!😂😂

WASPI was addressing a particular case. It is not against pension equalisation.

For many, possibly most people it will be the only benefit they ever claim.

It costs money to means test, just paying it to everyone is cheaper.

People who receive the full pension have paid decades of NI.

As for women retiring early, IMHO any woman born before the equal pay act and the sex discrimination act should get to retire a few years earlier as compensation for their lower earnings and work place discrimination.