State Pension

[JollyPollysjolly]

my Husband is sure that by the time we reach state pension age (me 45, him 49) that it will no longer exist - or maybe when we reach 100 ha! Anyone with any knowledge that can add to this idea so I can argue back?

If voters keep voting in Tory governments and swallowing the "unaffordable" drivel, there will be no state benefits, just tax, for which you will see little direct benefit. What is wrong with the tax people pay being spent on the people who pay it ? Yes, pensions, maternity, paternity and everything else will go. They are coming after the sick and disabled now, I bet some of you are clapping your hands with glee, useless bunch of workshy skivers that they are. My piss is truly boiled with this thread, nasty, mean, penny pinching selfishness. I'm pretty disgusted with it

What are you talking about? Who has been 'nasty, mean, penny pinching selfishness'?

Thank you for the apology. I just couldn't figure it out.

Life expectancy is falling. A shocking indictment of modern life. People are going to die younger anyway.

Whilst someone who works at a desk in Pensions all their life can doubtless continue working into their 70s and earning a significant salary - the majority cannot, they have more physical jobs, drivers, nurses, construction, technicians, engineers, agri, logistics, warehousing etc etc.

This has vast wealth, huge numbers of multi millionaires and 100s of billionaires, vast inequality, yet, even now, some of the lowest taxes in Europe, why is it acceptable for people like Sunak to pay less proportionately than anyone on PAYE?
Why is unearned income taxed so very differently from earned income?

The issues are nothing to do with affordability, its about greed, those at the top wanting more "Trickle UP economics" if you like.

Me too. It makes me glad I'm old, tbh, if this is the way things are going. I don't want to be in need of care and support in a society that doesn't give a shit about the poor, the sick and the vulnerable.

I'll spend my last few grand on a one-way trip to Switzerland, I reckon.

You have nailed it!

Just like:
Care home fees.
Legal aid.

Err... too late to edit my post. I stuck with the state penis.

Thankfully my private one will be bigger.

I read recently that if you are low income and in an age gap relationship you can't access your state pension until the younger of the two reaches pension age.

So say for example you are 10 years older than your spouse and have built up a full state pension yourself. You can't get it until you are 78 if your spouse is claiming UC.

Seems very unfair.

100%

But pretty disgusting that Labour also plan on having a go at the least well off in society too :(

Whilst ruling out any sort of wealth tax on unearned income, which of course only the very wealthy benefit from.

Your private penis? 😭

I wouldn’t worry, that will provide a lot of laughter today. It’s a pubic public service!

Why? Other benefits are contribution based (eg job seekers allowance). You don’t get NI refunded if you don’t claim them.

That can’t be right, surely? That’s scandalous.

This can't be true.

You will still get your state pension, but it will be treated as unearned income and deducted in full from your UC entitlement, so you end no better off as a couple.

One of my colleagues has just done some work with a "mixed age couple", as they are known in benefit speak. She worked out that they'd be loads better off if they split up and lived separately. Both would get their full rent covered by benefits!

The UK has some of the lowest state pensions already.

That’s not true. Your age for claiming state pension is not related to your partner. Your eligibility for benefits such as pension credit may be dependent on a partner’s income tho. But not state pension

That’s again not true. The situation is complex but considering what we are required to pay for our state pension, it’s not bad comparatively. Most other countries have state pensions combined with private pensions or require higher contributions for higher amounts.

But a few years ago they decided to change the state pension. They could have decided to increase the means tested pensions credit and leave state pension untouched, which over time would have the effect of the pension being almost entirely means tested. But instead they decided to bring in a new increased non-means-tested state pension for younger pensioners, and to maintain the increases on both the new pension and the old state pension - so now younger pensioners (under 70) are getting 33% more state pension than older ones.

This doesn't suggest a desire to bring in means testing for pensions.

That’s the case for most couples reliant on benefits

We’ve been encouraged for many years now to sort out our own pensions. Don’t waste time arguing about this, otherwise you will never retire.

That was true, I believe, for older pensioners where the pension was based on the husband's contribution and covered both of them (because at the time women were unlikely to be working in a job where they paid NI, and even if they were, they could opt out and pay "married women contributions). But that stopped a long while back.

@CookStrait most people can not save enough to manage without a state pension. So a half a million pension pot would give you about £15k a year.
To achieve this realistically you need to be earning above average salary. And you still get a low annual pension.

Private pensions mean people are not claiming to up welfare benefits. That is the benefit to the government.

Where does the idea that pensioners are so affluent come from?

Old age pensions have never really been adequate. In their basic form, they are designed to be enough for an individual or couple to live on, for a short time to the end of their lives.

For example, the original 'Old Age Pension', introduced in 1908, was for people over 70. It was five shillings (25p), and it was means tested. I think the average (mean) life expectancy then was under 60, so people were lucky to reach pension age

From 1948 until 2010, women could retire at 60 and men at 65. In 1948, the average life expectancy was just under 70, so, again, people weren't expected to live very long as pensioners.

Currently, I will be eligible for my state pension at the age of 67, and life expectancy for a female is 82, so, according to statistics, I may have 15 years as a pensioner.

Yet, like many people with no private or professional pension, I will have to either live on a pension that gives little more than a subsistence, or I will have to remain in the workforce, even though my physical health and mental faculties are declining.

I will remain in the workforce even though there are younger and fitter people looking for work. I will remain in the workforce mopping up those part time, low paid positions that employers will keep offering as long as there are people, without too many commitments, who will take them.

I don't know what the answer is to the question of whether state pension age should continue to be raised, but I do know that even if people do live longer than they used to, it does not mean they can or should work longer.

What a nice son he must be, talking about his mother's personal finances.

Is 3k a month really an obscene amount?

Plus as blossomtoes pointed out, tax will be paid on the £3k.