To be angry with people who describe the old age pension as a "benefit"?

[FlubandSlub]

When I started my working life, aged 16, I entered into an agreement with the government for them to save my pension money for me. It was stated that it would be until I turned 60 which would be when I could starting drawing my old age pension. Even though I made my FULL pension payment contributions by the time I turned 51 the government has decided it will not abide by the original agreement and that it is going to keep MY money until I am 67. Probably hoping I will die before then.

Consider this, not only did I contribute to my pension, my employer did too. It totalled 15% of my income before taxes. If you averaged only £15 000 p a. over your working life, that's close to £220,500. Read that again. Did you see anywhere that the Government paid in one single penny?

We are talking about the money that I and my employer put in a Government bank to ensure that I would have a retirement pension. It was not money that the Government had any right to spend on other things! Upon reaching the age to take it back they've started to call the money we paid in a "benefit" !

If you calculate the future invested value of £2500 per year (yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5% interest (that's less than what the govtpays on the money that it borrows from overseas), after 49 years of working you'd have
£892,919.98.

This money was supposed to be in a securely locked box, not to be used as part of the Government's general funds.
Successive governments borrowed the money to spend on other things but that doesn't make my pension some kind of charity or handout!! If a private pension company did this we would sue them. Unfortunately the Government can legally rob us blind and get away with it

IT'S MY MONEY! IT IS NOT A BENEFIT!!

I understand your point and certainly agree that the government always loves the population fighting amongst themselves (see the stop the boats campaign, etc). However, it's very different now. For the last 250 years or so, each subsequent generation had slightly better prosperity compared to their parents and grandparents. This trend has now clearly reversed, with the middle aged and young now being significantly less prosperous than the elderly. It's little wonder that younger people are opting out to a greater degree (eg rise in NEETs, lying flat in China) and goes some way to explain the poor mental health of that generation too. The more intelligent and thoughtful elderly understand this, perhaps from contact with their own grandchildren, but others do not and have an shockingly entitled attitude which is distasteful to many eg the totally OTT response to the cut of the WFA.

That's it. The statements that are made again and again aren't true, not even close to being accurate.

Maybe the government should sent everybody a statement of what they have paid in, add interest remove what they have claimed so far and highlight the balance.

If you are credit, great.

If you are in debit then maybe get off your arse and get a job. I can't stand idle scroungers.

Alternatively accept that living in a society is fuck all like living in a household and accept that how it was, is and will always be and start working on making the country a nicer place for us all.

It's a long established MN rule that the OP has no obligation to return to a thread. Not all discussions need the OP to return. In fact some are improved when the OP disappears.

They could try it but I suspect that this would produce such a massive political backlash that they wouldn't. Apart from that, the government, any government, needs a way to cut costs now. I think that will result in all generations becoming poorer, although the young will be worst off, in general.

Ah, but there's no such thing as society anymore! It seems to have been broken but 50 years of neoliberal politics.

CA/state pension and attendance allowance for both of them would be around £1500 per month - as you correctly say, they would only get CA to top up state pension to the rate of CA (£83.30 weekly). If they qualified for pension credit that would make up their entitlement to their full state pension amount but that would depend on the private pension income. If we assume a very small private pension which allows for say £100 a week each in pension credit with the carers premium on top, their total income would be around £2700 or thereabouts - and that’s being generous with the pension credit in the absence of any detail about private pension amounts. So still nowhere near the 4K of state support quoted, and probably less.

So people are getting what they voted for.

Hard to be upset at that, surely ?

I agree that the Aged Pension is not a benefit like many others.
All old people qualify to get it by virtue of the fact that they have contributed to taxes and pensions for others all their life and they are old enough to stop working.
They deserve it; they have earnt it.

Not really.

I suspect this OP has realised how hugely mistaken her perception was, as to how SP works. Any return to the thread would only be to argue the toss, which is pretty impossible given how many people have corrected her. So you’re probably right in that in this case, the discussion has developed perfectly well without any more input.

They really haven’t. Hence the retirement age continuing to rise. State Pension is funded by national insurance contributions from employer and employee, not from general taxation, and the national insurance fund pays for other state benefits and some NHS funding. So from that point of view most people will take out more than they put in.

Well, their absence - and the posts noting it - tell their own story.

Honestly, I just thought that this was one in a long history of shit-stirring posts from a group of people with an agenda to sow division and/or foment discontent with the government. Probably Russian.

It's probably worth considering the history of the State Pension in the UK. When it was introduced the qualifying age of 65 (for men) was actually beyond life expectancy at the time. It was never intended to provide any kind of long term income, but purely to save men from the indignity of literally working until they dropped. It was only meant to pay out for a few months, to far fewer people.

Was that written down anywhere ? In particular in the act(s) of Parliament that were voted on ?

Yes, in theory. I think the population should take some responsibility. There have been certain groups who have cheered Neoliberal policy on loudly. It's only now that we are being served the consequences that they are complaining, especially when it might affect them.

To some extent it has already been started though.
It is in recent years that the default was introduced, for every employee, that you pay into a private pension from your first paycheck.

The perception already is that no-one currently starting work in their teens or twenties is going to be able to rely on getting a state pension. Whether it moves to an older or older age or how it happens is for future political parties to worry about, but it isn't going to be some shock announcement in 30 years time, it is already felt to be the case by all young people I've ever hear mention it.

No. They haven't earned it, as has already been discussed in multiple posts on this thread.

Why would you think that? There are plenty of angry and upset people around in the UK. Are you trying to excuse this and past government by making up excuses relating to foreign governments?

It is in recent years that the default was introduced, for every employee, that you pay into a private pension from your first paycheck.

Worth remembering that private pensions are really just jumped up savings accounts. And like any savings product, you could end up with less than you put in (because you have to factor in inflation over the period of the accumulation).

And pension providers are just private companies. Nothing special about them. The can go bust. Or suffer mismanagement.

Now these aren't impossible to address. But you would need a level of competence and probity in government that I've not seen in all my adult life.

I am of an age to remember the Mirror pensioners who opted out of SERPS only to have Robert Maxwell steal their pensions and the government say "That was a shame wasn't it. You really should have known better.".

I think that because Russian interference in the domestic politics of western democracies is a big thing, and the OP bears many of the hallmarks of it.

It's well-described in the text books for the social policy module I did as part of my PPE degree.

So as far as the voting public are/were concerned that's a no then.

Maybe there is a miscommunication here.

Handouts are when the government provides support: financial aide like paid housing, transportation, clothing and food, free medical care to those who are able to work, but for some reason, do not.

Handouts do not apply to those who have been diagnosed with disabilities, physical or psychological. These ppl recieve benefits, financial aide or supplemental income. BC they cannot work if severely disabled. Some can work with a disability, if someone will hire them.

Ppl who pay in to a retirement fund, get their pension fund income, benefit or return, after they turn 67 and too old to travel, have too much arthritis to enjoy anything and fall asleep often..

When a person signs up for unemployment compensation, they can only receive those benefits for 18 to 24 months and its only a percentage of what they made from their last employment. No one gets life-time unemployment bc you are expected to return to the workforce.

What other ppl recieve as, free aide, employment benefits or income of any kind...is not my business.

Each agency who provides income support and welfare is responsible for the vetting, approval and oversight of their recipients. Qualifying for benefits may include: number of dependants, residential overhead, diabilities in the household, ages in the household, medical documentation, Social Worker documentation, employment/unemployment records of the residents, legal and law enforcement records, etc.

If they qualify, through research and careful consideration, these applicants deserve it. Agencies hire ppl who regularly inspect and investigate their recipients and those recipients are required to report, with proof, any income. They don't want to be caught lying or cheating bc they will have to pay it back and possibly do jail time or community service for fraud. They will lose all benefits and never be trusted or supported again.

It is sad the retirement age for benefits has been changed to age 67. Not sure it is accurate that ppl are living longer. We have more health issues now than 30 years ago bc of obesity and poor nutrition from manufactured foods and restaurant foods. Diabetes, heart disease, immune diseases, alzheimers, and more, are excessively rampant. Covid and the Vaxes have caused even more issues... that somehow are being suppressed. Age 63 to 65 is plenty old enough to retire and recieve a few yrs payments of your own money. The government will keep most of everyone's investments anyway. Whether or not the money was invested in profitable stocks or not, it would have gained interest or profit somewhere. But you wont see any of that. You could have put that money into a savings account instead and possibly have earned more. Also, you could have access anytime before age 67. If you bought CDs or annuities with your savings, at age 50 to 55, tidy profit.