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?

@coolpineapple1 your employer must be paying into a private pension? or are you self employed? it’s worth putting in even the tiniest amount so you can benefit from what your employer or the govt puts in

How lovely for the gloating pair! That’s why the system needs a thorough overhaul.

Well, I would have got a lot of perks if I had just sat on my bum making out that looking after a home, 2 kids etc was actually a job.

But, it was my choice not to do that, so, now, because of private pensions/full state pension, I get nothing extra.

The positive side is that I don’t have to justify state handouts, and I’m not subject to different government policies. What I get is mine,

Not if the government taxes the private pension and reduces the state fir those with other means. What's yours is only yours if the state graciously allows you to keep it.

True that she's not doing anything illegal or fraudulent. But, just because it's not illegal, doesn't mean it's not immoral.
For one person to live in a giant house that she didn't work for, and to then get handouts and loads of freebies, when others are working, or did work, every hour for years and years, with little to show for it and no freebies; well, it's not moral. It's not being a good citizen.
Life is give and take, not just take.

That’s why the system needs a thorough overhaul

Indeed it needs a complete overhaul , I think many if not most on this thread are agreed the whole welfare system in general needs to be made more fair - and work must pay more.

Something has to give because a lot of hardworking people increasingly feel they are getting very little for what they put in, compared to some people who just continually take. And then there are people who genuinely fall on hard times and somehow slip through the net and can barely get a scrap of help.

But if person A sold her home, it would have no impact on person B. You can't really blame someone being just above the cut off for benefits on someone who is claiming them.
And some people do land on their feet with housing and inherit a large house or whatever. Again, that has nothing to do with people who have had to work for theirs.

Well, of course it doesn't directly immediately affect person b. But, I guess for society to function, it requires the majority of people to do the right thing. If everyone lived lives of leisure because they don't feel work suits them or whatever, and then claimed benefits they haven't contributed to, for the last chapter of life, we'd be stuffed.

I realise most people who claim benefits are legitimately entitled, and have good reason, and don't see it as a lifestyle choice. I really don't think there are nearly as many people who work the system, as certain news publications would have us believe. But, there definitely are some. There are some people who don't have that sense of fairness that most do. It's hard not to feel upset by the piss takers, when so many working people are struggling to keep a roof over their heads etc.

I don't know how the system can be made fairer. I certainly wouldn't want any changes to make things even harder for genuine people in need who really do need help. So, it's a difficult circle to square.

They have all worked hard their whole lives, they are not gloating, they are incredulous that the government is giving them these extra benefits and col payments. They are amazed by it all as none of them claimed one benefit whilst working.

Don't worry. I didn't get the impression they were gloating at all 😊 If they worked loads, they probably just get a top-up with pension credit to add to their state pension? I don't think anyone could object to that.
It's more the people who never worked or paid NI who get pension credit as their sole income that people have more of a problem with.
I've got to be honest and say I just don't understand how anyone can never have worked, except in the case of illness. Even if they were full-time SAH mums (and I 100% support that choice) there are still usually at least several years of working life left after their kids have left home, gone to uni or started working themselves. I don't know how anyone can justify never working or contributing to the system, only to take so much out of the system later! Though I imagine it's a tiny minority.
But, I didn't get that impression from your post about your parents at all. I totally agree with them that £218 a week, if not paying rent or council tax out of it, is a decent amount to live on if you're used to having a low income when you worked. My income is low, but I've learnt to manage well on it. I'd be fine on £218 a week after rent. Many people would.

I do think removing the fuel allowance is a vote-loser and I was not expecting this to happen. Glad I didn't vote for any of them, but at least the Tories knew who goes out and votes and it isn't 18 year olds.
Regarding state pensions, I am confused. I always paid what used to be called 'your stamp' as I could see no good reason to rely on DH (ex-H)'s pension for myself. Late DH paid NI, but was a self-employed crofter (complicated situation as to benefits and taxation) as well as a Youth Worker etc - what is now called a portfolio career. He got a smaller state pension than I did, even though I reckon he had worked more years than I (despite his several training and education breaks) - but I had my NI paid whilst at home with DCs. Both had NI credited when we were students.
We made provision elsewhere, anyway. The benefits you mention are paid to those who have been unable to pay NI for parts of their lives, who are disabled, unemployed, carers, mothers who have never worked outside the home etc.
The system is arranged to make sure no-one starves or lives in abject poverty. I willingly support those who have less than me (though DH got slightly narky about people who had not made his efforts and got more pension than he did - but he was a Liberal and I am a Socialist).
I do not think I was a mug to work and pay for what I would need. I do wish I had spent more time with late DH, though, and we had not had to work so hard. But's that's life, and we enjoyed it.

Also, we do not pay for our individual state pensions, though the number of NI payments we make counts towards it. NI pays for everyone, payments are not earmarked to the payee (like any insurance).

Spot on! There are people who do the bare minimum of hours to retain their benefits and won't work increased hours as their benefits will be deducted accordingly. All about entitlement

Then the fault is with the system that allows that, and not the people playing it.
I gather that is is people with children that this applies to anyway, not single childless folk.
Having children complicates things.

Oh please. So people have zero personal responsibility at all, just puppets of the state? Is anyone responsible for anything they do in your eyes?

What are you on about?
If the rules that the DWP set say you can work 16 hours, and get the rest topped up... then can you blame anyone for doing that?
If you are in a shitty low paid job, with a knob as a boss, would you honestly say you would still do all the hours under the sun as a misdirected sense of pride?
If not... you must have a job you enjoy? Actually, not a job... a career.
Check your privilege.

I agree with you, except that, as far as I'm aware, you have to work far more than 16 hours to be eligible for universal credit. For single parents, it's 30 hours, at least.

I don't know. People trot out the 16 hour thing on here. As far as I know, it is to do with what you earn, not the hours you do (on UC at least, tax credits might be different).
Does the age of your children have an affect too?

Depends how much u earn

Yes, this

Sums it up

People are expected to work 18 hours x nmw per week on UC unless you have very young children. It's a ridiculously low amount, as was the number of hours you had to work to get tax credits which preceded UC. they also don't seem to mind people reducing their working hours as long as they meet that 18x nmw figure. My colleague who has one 16 year old son has just reduced her hours from full time to four days a week. She gains 55p more UC for each pound less she earns so doesn't feel too hard done by and gets to enjoy an extra day a week doing her hobbies.

As a single parent, I have to work 30+ hours or minimum wage equivalent until youngest dc turns 13 next year, when it goes up to 35.

If it were 18 hours, I might not be so ill, stressed and exhausted and struggling!

I don't understand this because the AET at which single parents are left alone is 18 x nmw. Maybe that is just the earnings that people aren't called into appointments with a job coach. My colleague has faced no repurcussions for dropping her working hours to 30.

'An extra day a week doing her hobbies'

Ffs.