Where is the money going to come from to meet the UK people expectations?

[Pandersmum]

So assuming that:

• everyone who receives disability benefits needs them and may actually believe they should be entitled to more
• pensioner benefits are non negotiable and again many believe they should be greater than current
• working people (most) believe they are already taxed highly and believe they cannot be taxed any more without further impact to their feeling of unfairness and resentment of the system
• it is unreasonable to expect young people with ADHD or other similar ND disorders / mental health challenges to work, even if they have qualifications and therefore they must be financially supported by the state
• Mental health challenges are very real in any age of person and therefore they must be financially supported by the state and if in work, by their employers
• rent (whatever level) should be supported by the state because it is a basic right to have a home
• NHS treatment (& the best treatment) should be free be all, no matter how expensive it is or whatever their age because people pay their taxes
• businesses are businesses and are there to make profits for their owners - therefore they can choose which country they operate in / pay their taxes in - if they don’t like the UK tax system, they can move somewhere else
• ’in work benefits’ are necessary to support ‘low paid workers, often in essential jobs’ to gain similar amounts of financial remuneration to those on benefits
• high net worth individuals can move if they don’t like the UK tax system

So just where is the money going to come from to fund the UK population of financial expectation of what the state should provide?

It depends how long you live, doesn’t it?

No it depends on how much tax you paid....

And then you need to think about the fact have paid enough tax for your pension, healthcare, education, etc.

Again the vast majority won't have paid anywhere near enough which isn't a problem when you have pyramid demographics. It is when you have an ageing population and when people think that part of their tax is saved in a pot for them for when they need it years later.

Take for example, Landlords now pay tax on one of their main costs; interest. No other business taxes costs. That gets passed straight onto the tennant. For every £100 interest a Landlord pays on a mortgage, the tennant will pay £120 with £20 of that going to the Government.Its a tax on renters

Yes I think we all know that.

@Katypp Look at the responses, people don't get it!

But, much as i know that MNetters think pensioners should be the sacrificial lambs for everything that is wrong in our economy,

😆😆

What public sector has the employers paying 28% of salary in?

teachers do...

I doubt anyone thinks we all have a shoe box at hmrc with our money in 🤣🤣🤣

Its used by the Govn to invest and pay out to current pensioners and for current services.
People seem to always come on here and make out those in favour of state pensions don’t understand the system. We are not all stupid. We know how it works and we know the law surrounding it.
Unlike those who seem to think current funders can have it taken away or means tested….it can’t be.

Something has to change.

"In its latest report, the IFS said: "Increases in the state pension age required to keep spending on the state pension below a certain level of national income would have to be substantial.
"[Official] modelling shows that to keep public spending on the state pension below six per cent of national income while retaining the triple lock, the state pension age would have to rise to 69 by 2049 and 74 by 2069."

I doubt anyone thinks we all have a shoe box at hmrc with our money in

Some people definitely do, they don't understand the ramifications of the changing demographics

Unlike those who seem to think current funders can have it taken away or means tested….it can’t be.

I don't see how you can ask younger people to work till their 70s & never get certain benefits 🤷🏻‍♀️

I wonder if they’ve done the calcs on cost to other benefits because people in their early 70s ( and late 60s) are
unlikely to get work
more likely to need disability benefits ( PIP isn’t payable if you apply after state pension age so that would mean increasing the threshold by 9 years )
etc.

When you start adding up the cost difference I wonder which is cheaper.

Its not about asking it’s about the law. There are protections in place for those currently paying. Our money pays for current pensioners on the agreement that we get the same based on years paid in. Any attempt to backtrack on that is miss selling.

Really! Millions of shoe boxes !

@DrPrunesqualer but things do change

"Our money pays for current pensioners on the agreement that we get the same based on years paid in."

The age for me has increased to 68.

I won't be getting free prescriptions at 60, do you think you will? Winter fuel? Nope

I reckon they will scrap the triple lock, not for current of course but upcoming.

But, much as i know that MNetters think pensioners should be the sacrificial lambs for everything that is wrong in our economy,

I know MNs is an older platform so the views are skewed but it's interesting when people think this when society seems very comfortable with pulling the ladder up for young people.

No, because NIC isn't only for state pension. It's just a tax. People dying at 70 may not have contributed anywhere near enough for the public sector services and benefits they've received up to aged 70!

Agree.
I also will be retiring later than expected at it may increase again. Who knows
but they can’t take the state pension away completely to current funders.
Nor can they reduce it or cap it as it’s based on living costs outlined by the IFS and currently the triple lock promise

They can get rid of the triple lock of course. There are no guarantees on that score.

So legally in order to abolish the state pension they could offer a serps type arrangement or just remove the pension side of NI payments to new WAP paying in.
Then anyone who never works gets other benefits for life

Again, it depends. If you’ve been relatively healthy throughout your working life during which you’ve worked full time, it’s highly unlikely that your contributions wouldn’t cover three years of state pension. If you didn’t have children the state would be quids in.

Agree although whilst kids are expensive short term they are a tax benefit later.
We need children being born to keep going.

Of course. But it’s undoubtedly true that healthy people who don’t have children become net contributors at a lower point.

Absolutely agree but I’m going to have to push back a bit on this one Blossom as without our kids paying in later the payments we make in our lifetime do nothing for us or the state when we are pensioners. Our money has been spent already. ( obv I know many pensioners still pay taxes )

Being a Net contributor is about throughout our lifetime and contributing future tax payers is part of that.

Not that I had kids just so they could be taxpayers of course 🤣🤣.

I'm not forgetting that at all. We absolutely need a private sector and a public sector. What I object to is people who choose to work in the private sector, because of the advantages, moaning about public sector pensions decades later.

Thanks to those who have pointed out that teachers and some civil servants have very high employer contributions. I didn't know it was so high and thought the pp had included the employee's contribution which also tends to be much higher than those in the private sector. I stand corrected on that.

I'm not sure that's correct re pensions @DrPrunesqualer
If the government were to argue that there is no money to pay it, I'm not sure the mis-selling argument would work. The government promises lots of things and then changes their policy. The fact is that the current arrangements are clearly unaffordable and, as usual, it is likely that younger generations will pay the price of their elder's largesse, which they already spent on themselves.

Exactly. It's clear that all benefits will reduce for current younger people when they become pensioners. The pensionable age has already risen from 60 for a woman to 68 for many currently working. That's a huge increase.

In aggregate, current pensioners have not paid anywhere near enough. We need to look at the aggregate, not individuals because everyone can think of an exception to the rule. To have the current state pension privately, the contributions would have needed to be far greater.

I have not said young people should be sacrificial lambs. I have no idea where you get that from.
I would not be so presumptuous to think you are that interested, but if you looked, you would find I have actually been quite vocal about advocating for pensioners to lose some of their benefits and always suggest losing the triple lock in discussions such as this one.
Only earlier this week, I said we need to lose the romanticism around pensioners fighting in the war when the vast majority alive today haven't.
What I was responding to is the assertion that all pensioners should be subject to means testing to get their pension. Over timer yes, but it is completely unfair to take away something that people already have or could reasonably expect to be getting in the near future.
Do you not plan your finances? Would you be OK with losing some of your wage with ho warning?
And finally, I was referencing some really nasty posts on MN about 'greedy boomers' as if pensioners had planned all the luck they have had and were enjoying seeing younger people suffer.