AIBU to think that I shouldn't have bothered working and paying into National Insurance for the 35 years I have done so?

[HauntedBungalow]

When all I will get is the bare State Pension. Whereas other people who did not make these contributions and/or did not work will get Pension Credit plus all the other nice little add ons like Council Tax Support, free boilers and now Winter Fuel Allowance? AIBU to think I'm a mug for bothering to work all those years?

I know you can't eat bricks. But, if someone is choosing to live alone in an enormous house it's a luxury lifestyle choice really. Very different from someone who owns a one/two bed flat or bungalow.
Said lady I mentioned could take in a lodger, do Airbnb, release equity, or, in my opinion most sensibly, sell and downsize. She could free up about £200k and have a better life in many ways.
Of course it's up to her, but asset wealth is a form of wealth, and if someone owns a massive expensive house they can't say they're poor. They're making a choice.
I think the particular case I mentioned upsets me a bit, as she's quite posh and had a decent inheritance, then a rich husband who bought her a house. She chose to spend her money on hobbies and art courses and travel etc. Up to her. But, when I compare her situation with the other lady I mentioned, who comes from a very poor working class background, and worked all her life in low-paid jobs, scrimping and saving. Who most certainly couldn't afford to buy a huge house, but doesn't define herself as poor, as she saved etc. But, she's not entitled to benefits and freebies like the lady I first described. It all seems very unfair.

The issue is just how poorly paid workers are now. Person B (the worker) should be making more money and so therefore having a better standard of living than Person A (the person on benefits).
Lower working class/working class type jobs have had the reward element of the deal totally removed. Wages now just put people on a treadmill of coping.
If there were a noticeable difference between what workers and those on benefits got, then there wouldn't be so much frustration and anger at the situation we find ourselves in.
We should not be reducing what those on benefits get, as they are given just enough to scrape by. But the uplift that working traditionally gave has just been eroded....

Yes, I think she does. She could sell it and downsize, free up some cash. She'd still be a homeowner, but a home better suited to her lifestyle and cheaper to heat and maintain. A better quality of life and less stress overall.
I really don't think it's fair that she gets pension credit and freebies, and others living in studio flats don't because they qualify for the full state pension. Clearly the person living in the giant house is the wealthier one.

Posting again, just hours after my last post. Sorry. The hot humid weather made it difficult to sleep!
There's something I need to express, after reading a few other posts now, though I still haven't read the whole thread. I just read the title quickly yesterday, and posted in a brief moment of a busy day.
My first post yesterday wasn't adding to any chorus on here, one way or the other. It was just my own voice. My own independent thought.
I'm a bit upset @XenoBitch after reading a few of your other posts that you might have misunderstood, and thought my post was adding to an anti-benefits claimants chorus? Your comment about not being able to eat bricks. I know! I'm left-wing. I believe we need a strong social system and a safety net for hard times any one of us could fall in. I struggle with my mental health and due to trauma I had a breakdown a few years ago. I lived on savings initially; but they eventually ran out and I had to claim incapacity benefit for a few months. If it hadn't been there I'd probably have died. I'm so grateful for that safety net. I never felt entitled, just very grateful. I'm very happy that some of my taxes paid over years contributes to that pot for others at times of need.
But, to me it's possible to have a nuanced view. I don't have to pick a side on this issue, or any issue.
My comment about property ownership was in relation to the specific cases I mentioned. I actually think the first lady I mentioned is probably quite unusual. She comes from an upper middle-class background, but now lives on pension credit. Probably in past times she'd have been described as a gentle woman in need or something! Genteel poverty. You know how such women might have relied on a wealthy benefactor 200 years before social security! But wouldn't have dreamt of working in certain jobs, and often still lived in fancy houses. The second lady comes from poverty. Grew up working class and poor, but with a strong work ethic. No opportunity for higher education, she worked liked crazy in poorly paid jobs for years to get out of poverty, provide for her family etc. Not a handout in her life. Fast forward to now - she owns (due to hard work) a humble little dwelling and lives on a modest pension, probably just misses out on pension credit. She (or her situation) is probably far more common and typical than the first lady. The first lady bothers me a bit, as she defines herself as very poor. When she floats around in a giant grand 3 storey house. It's a bit galling to be honest, when I myself rent a tiny flat, and due to cost of rents these days, wonder if I'll ever be able to be a home owner. My own income is low, but I'm self-employed and work every hour. I don't claim now at all. So, if anything my comment was as much about housing injustice as benefits.
It's possible to have a balanced view. I can strongly support a social system, and believe we need to care for everyone and help those who need it. But, I do think within the system there are injustices, and some people who misuse it. I do think the two situations I mentioned highlight that. If someone owns a £500k massive house outright, they're not poor no matter how much they say they are; and it's unfair on the other lady, and others like her, who've worked themselves to the bone, but could no more own a £500 k gaff than fly to the moon; but who aren't entitled to a penny of handouts. That's clearly unfair!
Anyway, sorry my post is so long. I was a bit upset that you and others may have misunderstood my post yesterday, when I actually can't bear demonisation of the poor. I've done lots of voluntary work with homeless people. Now that really is poverty. Total compassion for marginalised people in our society. A very very different case from the asset rich woman I've case studied to prove my point about the unfairness of pension credit in some instances.
It's not a black and white issue. Few things are I guess!

My parents and uncle say they have more disposable income on pension credit than when they worked.

The problem isn't that Woman 1 is living in a big house and benefitting from Pension Credit and Woman 2 has worked hard all her life, is living in a much smaller house, and loses out on Pension credit.

The problem is that so many benefits have been hung on to Pension Credit entitlement that there a large number of people just outside entitlement to Pension Credit who are much worse off than those on Pension Credit with all their entitlements. That needs to be sorted. I don't know how to do it without increasing the administrative cost, and it would still leave pockets of unfairness,

Ha- I’ll be 68 and probably in such poor health due to the workload that by the time I d retire I’ll have no quality of life. The old NHS pension yes- now no chance.

I think the two things are kind of the same.
I definitely agree that all the add-ons make pension credit recipients better off than those who just miss out. But, I do think the situation we've highlighted is part of that whole unfair system too. Definitely woman a is better off (overall) than woman b, as woman a has an option to free up masses of cash which woman b doesn't. Woman a doesn't have to pay council tax, woman b does. I do also think that it matters that woman b worked like a trojan in exhausting low paid jobs for years! She deserves a comfortable rest. Woman a has largely been a lady of leisure most of her life, and now gets everything paid for her, when she's got the option to make a living on her huge house. Woman a is taking the piss!

You see I've thought about this - the extravagantly-housed woman I know who receives pension credit, gets about £218 a week. She doesn't have to pay rent or a mortgage. Nor does she have to pay council tax.
A minimum wage worker who also pays rent and council tax would have far less left over than £218 after those two things are paid. I'm self-employed. A choice of course, so not complaining. But, my income varies, and I often earn very little, and have outgoings. Honestly I would feel quite well off if I had £218 left over every week after rent etc paid.

Yes it doesn't seem quite right especially if they are not paying council tax

Paying NI provides a social safety net for others. It is a tax. If you would rather all the OAPs currently on state pension had nothing then...

Private pensions are your own private savings pot.

How is person A taking the piss? She is doing nothing wrong, and is not claiming anything fraudulently. No one is required to sell the home they live in to fund their pension. That would be a very dangerous path to go down... it could be UC claimants next.
Her selling her house and living off the proceeds would not make person B situation any better either.

The problem is with the system and the cut off, not the people claiming.

They should sell it. If I was struggling financially I would have to sell my house and move my children out of their home. Why should this be any different?

No one would be forcing to you to sell... that would be your circumstances making you do so. Would you feel it acceptable that you would have to sell the home you live in before you could claim UC?
Because suggesting that someone must sell their home before they can claim pension credit is the same.

Then I think those that haven't paid much should be grateful for the over 40 years' of NI that many of us have paid!

They’re not grateful. They’re entitled, in many cases. Absolutely fine with topping up poorly paid people who work FT, no issues there whatsoever. Not happy to pay for people to choose to work PT or desperately evade work using any excuse possible. While gaslighting us WE are the lucky ones lol

You're fine topping up people that work full time? Which benefits employers and keeps wages low while shareholders, CEOs and politicians suck up as much profit as they can, raising the prices of the basics and pitting us all against each other for scraps?

You my friend are part of the problem.

I accept that I have been physically fit enough for my entire working life so I should -and have- gone out to work.

However my full NI record has come with a shit load of dragging my arse out of bed at 6.00 am.

I don't what anybody to have nothing.

I think those that have paid the full 35 years' worth should not get the same or even less that those who have paid less. They should get the most.

Sorry excuse my ignorance but how can a pension provider just go bust?? That’s ludicrous especially when youve been paying in. Wheres your money? Are people just expected to roll over and say oh well…

Unless you have a state pension (teacher, nurse) your money might not be as safe as you think.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/nov/03/pressandpublishing-daily-mirror

https://www.fscs.org.uk/what-we-cover/pensions/stolen-pension/

Absolutely agree with you OP. I'm a single parent, worked all my adult life. In my 40s and know I should be paying into a private pension but just can't afford it. I've resigned myself to the fact I will never retire and work until I drop.
Very different to my parents generation.

Any form of investment in the stock market is a risk and a gamble. Which is what all forms of insurance do. It's why it says in the small print that returns are estimates and cannot be guaranteed. It works for the mega wealthy who can spread money over many such institutions because by the law of averages profit can be made and losses offset or absorbed. For those who can only afford a small amount in one or two areas, the risk is considerably higher.

Where's your money?
The money that you paid in was used to buy stocks and shares etc, the value of those stocks and shares can go up or down.