Parental income

[glassdarker]

So, context, just seen 10% pension increase.

At same time I've been talking about doing something jointly with my mum and dad. So as a result we talked about income. My parents worked in manual/ administrative roles, neither went to Uni, but worked hard all their lives. Retired ten years ago, own house and car. I appreciate that many pensioners won't be in that position.

They both have small final salary schemes (one less than 10k, one less than 20k). They both get full state pensions. After normal bills their disposable income is a 2k a month. 2k a month ! I am blown away !

But bloody hell we are both higher rate tax payers and we are counting every penny (though we have a lot of extra spend due to a disabled DC). But AIBU to be a bit shocked by the difference in how we are experiencing the cost of living crisis ? I am glad they are doing OK and we don't need money from them but I am still a bit jaw dropped by this... and fantasy spending even 1/4 of that monthly disposable income !

My parents are similar, though they are paying DD's university costs for which I'm grateful

But the pension scheme wasn't set up to pay out based on "need." That's the point. It's based on contributions.

Also, it's always overlooked, but the global population has doubled in the past 50 years. If you think that competing for dwindling resources with an ever-burgeoning group of other humans is actually going to become easier, dream on.

In the west it's because of people living longer...

I don't recall saying I needed it?? But that £16 a week would make a big difference to people in need, and none whatsoever to my parents.

I just worked my 10% rise out. Tax and projected extra £ 100 council tax a year and it's just under £ 12 a week. Must order another crate of Bolly.

MrsDanversGlidesAgain · Today 16:50

Blossomtoes · Today 16:43

Maybe they’ll give you their extra £16 a week if you ask nicely.

Show quote history
I just worked my 10% rise out. Tax and projected extra £ 100 council tax a year and it's just under £ 12 a week. Must order another crate of Bolly.

See this is exactly the point!! You're implying that £12 a week isnt worth it but there are plenty of people for whom £50 a month would make a difference. They're the people who it should be going to!

I know. I don't agree that that means it always need to rise by inflation. I think, given the current situation, there should have been a smaller raise for all and more help for those in need, including pensioners on lower income, via a different system.

Quite!

Yep. Agree with you @Bibbitybobbityboot but 'they've worked hard all their lives"

I was responding to the time-worn argument that its worth spending money on children now because they're all going to be find upstanding citizens dutifully paying their taxes and we need them because of a decreasing birth rate and people living longer. It always assumes that all these children are going to turn into those fine upstanding citizens when obviously some of them won't and won't contribute.

Err that's not a reason to not invest in children because some may grow up to be criminals 😆

Everyone who has worked should get state pension, otherwise those who worked are directly subsidising those who didn't and not getting a penny back.
If you didn't get a state pension past a certain point of income, there would be no incentive for people to pay into pensions at all - you might as well spend all of your money and then live off the state. Your parents, on top of doing the bare minimum of paying NI, also managed to save for a private pension and are now comfortable - not rich - having paid off their mortgage. I would hope to be in this position when I retire, don't you?

I am sure that many of the people to whom it would make a "big difference" are in their predicaments due to their own choices. Why should people who made better choices be expected to sacrifice now, to ameliorate that?

I'm not a pensioner but if I were, extra funds would be spent on animal welfare, perhaps helping younger relatives, or giving to local charities -- just as my extra funds are used now. I dare say that's just a valid a use for the money as giving it to someone who is struggling due to poor past choices and unlikely to make better choices if they were handed even more money.

See this is exactly the point!! You're implying that £12 a week isnt worth it but there are plenty of people for whom £50 a month would make a difference. They're the people who it should be going to!

I'm not implying anything of the sort. I'm pointing out that this 10% rise that some people think I don't 'need' isn't exactly the riches they think it is. Evidently sarcasm doesn't come over well on SM.

An additional £ 50 a month is very helpful considering how much food bills have gone up. Don't worry, I won't spend it on anything too indulgent that I don't 'need.'

You're implying that £12 a week isnt worth it

No she’s not. But unless you’re on the bones of your arse it’s not a fortune, is it? And I have worked hard all my life @Pleasepleasepleaseno so have most people my age.

Then again, "the young" have had more opportunity to attend university, benefit from cancer treatments their elders could only dream of, have access to more affordable travel and enjoy technology that seems like something out of a sci-fi movie to many who grew up in the pre-digital era.

How far back are you going? my parents had fantastic cancer treatment, isn't cancer treatment declining? Travel was far cheaper for me in the early 00s than it is now, £40 return flight to Europe. I'm not sure a snazzy phone makes up for having to pay huge rent!

I am sure that many of the people to whom it would make a "big difference" are in their predicaments due to their own choices. Why should people who made better choices be expected to sacrifice now, to ameliorate that?

Surely that logic can be applied to pensioners who haven't got a private pension or need pension credit or are still renting?

The point is, it is not a sacrifice to the people who have made 'better choices' - it will make absolutely no difference whatsoever to those lucky people. And yes, I use the word lucky as normally those 'better choices' have been enabled by good luck - often, a good start in life, but for a lot of the pensioners now, the good luck to be born at the right time.
We clearly have very opposing views on this, I don't feel there is any point arguing with someone who would rather give money to animals than humans. As for younger relatives, they are much more likely to be in a position to be able to earn extra money, and make some of those 'good choices' (which by the way you are clearly enabling and some of the people who are struggling will not have had that help). In fact, you are perpetuating inequity, as not all young people will get that help, and will end up with fewer assets and a lower pension in the future. NOT through 'bad choices' but through structural and generational inequity. And so it goes on. Local charities - I would prefer the money went directly to the people that needed it, rather than through middle organisations that may or may not be funded depending on the whims of government and wealthy people. Anyway, stepping away now but this has been interesting. Some astonishingly entitled people on here.

Also "good choices" is a slippery slope. Do we deny NHS treatment to obese people, smokers, sun worshippers, people with high blood pressure or diabetes through life style. That would also impact older generations...

I don't feel there is any point arguing with someone who would rather give money to animals than humans.

That has to be the most bizarre rationalisation I have ever seen. How TF did we get to the charities a poster donates to being used as some sort of moral yardstick as to whether they're worth engaging with?

As for the rest of it - word salad's the kindest description.

Yawn

It would make a difference to me. And more to the point, the slippery slope of deciding who has "enough" and whose lifestyle is more worthy is perilous, especially when it comes to a state scheme that is supposed to be a level playing field for all citizens. We already have enough of that as it is, with imprudent people reaping benefits paid for by the prudent.

There's an old expression to the effect of "I find that the harder I work, the luckier I get."

I wasn't "lucky" to diligently use contraception, "lucky" to work two jobs for decades to increase my savings and stay debt-free, or "lucky" to stay in a boring but secure job instead of chasing nonsensical dreams.

Yes, I was lucky to be born with a decent level of intelligence and to not (yet) have experienced physical disability. But in many other ways we create our own luck through diligence, delayed gratification, prudence and restraint.

This isn't about the NHS, it's about pension payouts. And the notion of taking from the prudent and giving to the imprudent, as usual, because it's deemed that those who have worked hard for financial security have "enough" by someone else's yardstick.

If things moved too far towards means testing and applying the triple lock only to people on pension credit then there would be no incentive at all for people on modest incomes to pay into private pensions. Might as well have a bit more money now and claim pension credit in retirement. Overall the pension bill would increase

I'm retired and I'm alright thanks; I have the state pension and an occupational pension. My worry is for the generations behind me. Occupational pensions in our day-for most everyone, not just civil servants- were usually final salary pensions, and they pay out much more than the savings based pensions of today. My contributions at 5% of my salary were typical, and they were offset anyway by a reduction in National Insurance. And because you're so strapped with living costs, many of you aren't saving enough. You can't - you're more interested in food on the table and the roof over your head today. This will come home to roost for your children,who will have to cough up the tax to pay for your state pension, because your private ones won't be enough. Assuming you live long enough to actually retire anyway. And so on and so forth.

Some astonishingly entitled people on here

Paying into the state pension system and expecting the state to honour its promises and have a moderately comfortable retirement is now entitlement, apparently.