I’ve easily found £30bn of savings, so why can’t the government do this?

[OwnGravityField]

How about this state pension adjustment proposal?

Currently, the state pension system pays the same to everyone, even to households with very large private pensions and investment incomes. Much of this money ends up funding luxuries.

The proposal is simple:
*full SP for everyone who depends on it (60% of pensioners)
*households with more than £12,000 a year from private pensions, work, or investments have 50p of SP withdrawn for every £1 above that level, up to the value of the pension itself
*A quarter of pensioners would only have a modest reduction, and only the wealthiest 15% would no longer receive a publicly funded pension they do not need.

I used chatGPT to do the calculations.

Savings? THIRTY BILLION A YEAR

That’s 1% of GDP

List of things that could improve?

restored trust between generations so young taxpayers see their money spent on genuine need, not luxury.

national renewal: homes, NHS, lower childcare costs, investment in schools, training, the police force. It could be used to help families who are struggling with mortgage costs.

re-directing spending from low-value consumption (luxuries, imports) to investment (homes, healthcare, infrastructure) improves living standards

Positive effect on the bond markets, sterling value, credit-rating agencies, inflation trends, reduction in government debt - the UK really really needs this right now

I’d absolutely get up off my bum and vote for a party that proposed this. Would you?

So are we talking about completely irradicating disabled people here then? If you're born with a disability meaning you can't work or contribute to a capitalist system you're not worth sustaining beyond crust of bread and a slum?

I apologise. My mum told me she and step got 150 each. She is 89 and does slip up sometimes now.

I think it’s £150 for each in a couple, £300 for a single person if you’re over 80.

Yes, exactly, I am over 50 and saving like mad to try and reduce my mortgage and build a pension pot. If that is all going to be taxed I might as well start treating myself now - luxury holidays, expensive meals out, etc.

Oh do leave off - no party could get away with that idea. How about less UC?

People already spend so they don’t have to pay for care. People are sick of paying for other people. More people need to contribute.

Currently, the state pension system pays the same to everyone, even to households with very large private pensions and investment incomes.

Actually, after tax it doesn't. Many working age benefits are not taxed

In your calculations those having over 12.5k of income will pay 20% tax on their state pension (your proposal has them paying 50%) capping out their subsidised income at £25k which is £20k after tax or £54/day (£68 pretax).

National minimum wage is £12.21/hour or £92/day.. Everyone says that's too little but you want pensioners on 2/3 of that. Really?

Much of this money ends up funding luxuries.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying pensioners should not enjoy any luxuries, just subsist until they die??

It is the idea of "net contributors" that is tedious (and inaccurate). Presumably the opposite of "net contributors" is "skivers" or " leeches" or something similar.

As we move through our lives we are all at one time either "net contributors" or "net recipients" - it just describes an economic situation at a given point in time.

@WithDiamonds Before you reached the age of 18, how much of a "net contributor" were you? Who paid for your care at birth, your innoculations, your healthcare as you grew up, your education, the bus that you used to get to school and the roads that the bus (or your parent's car) travelled on?

When you left school and went on to study, or started working at an entry-level job, who paid for your healthcare, who paid for the police, military, national infrastructure etc.?

Only when someone reaches a certain level of income does anyone become a "net contributor" - in fact, most people never reach this level. Income Tax is not the only tax and only it accounts for only around 25% of Treasury income.

But we ARE "in a couple" and the letters state £100 each! I've just looked it up and nowhere does it say "If x applies to you, you'll get £100" (as in our letters) so I'm now very confused indeed!

Haven't read thread, but I am sure I am just reiterating what many people have said when I say that this fundamentally changes the terms on which people paid national insurance and disincentives saving, so it's a bit of a non starter as a political proposition.

restored trust between generations so young taxpayers see their money spent on genuine need, not luxury.

Not sure whether this is true, as under 40s also lose out and would be told that perhaps 10-20 years of NICs are worth nothing.

But I assume you’re not over 80? You get more if you’re over 80.

do you actually have any thoughts or arguments of your own, or have you outsourced all your thinking to Chat GPT?

Off the top of my head I've already spotted one clear error in "your" rationale - the 13 million = 1 in 4 voters is actually a quarter of the electorate which in 2024 was approx 48 million people. However only between 2/3 and 3/4 of the electorate (just under 29million in 2024) actually turn out to vote - a much higher percentage of whom are pensioners. Therefore they might only be 1/4 of all the potential voters but it's much more likely to be at least 2/4 or more of actual voters. Not to mention that you can't just assume everyone under 65 would vote for it - most people coming up to pension age in the next decade or two, who have been paying into a private pension on the understanding they'd benefit from both, would be turkeys voting for Christmas to vote for this.

Not true according to AI Overview:

While the elderly account for a significant portion of NHS spending, it is not true that they account for the majority of the entire NHS budget. Health spending per person is highest for the very elderly, but they make up a smaller portion of the total population.

Indeed - I can see the notes say over 80s get more. The bit I'm confused about is that online notes I found don't mention getting £100 each.

It is (unnecessarily IMO) confusing!

www.gov.uk/winter-fuel-payment/how-much-youll-get

If you do not get any of the benefits
You’ll get a payment of:

• £100 if you and the person you live with were both born between 22 September 1945 and 21 September 1959
• £100 if you were born between 22 September 1945 and 21 September 1959 but the person you live with was born before 22 September 1945
• £200 if you were born before 22 September 1945 but the person you live with was born between 22 September 1945 and 21 September 1959
• £150 if you and the person you live with were born before 22 September 1945

My late parents (Mum died 2017, Dad in 2022) would have loved a chat with those people on here who think all pensioners own property and spend their state pension on "luxuries".

There seems to be a MN trope that goes "I know some better-off pensioners, therefore they're ALL really well off". These seem also to be people who apparently never think they themselves will get old.

There are more people than ever (not just immigration) and there was a pandemic. We can see through this.

I just knew it had to involve pensioners when I saw the thread title 🙄

Jealousy is dripping from your post, they have paid into the system for the previous generation so are fully entitled to have their state pension, I hope they spend it on a world cruise just to annoy you.

Thank you! I didn't see the gov.uk version, which is slightly better (we're in the first category).

Well Labour generally is the politics of envy, so I’m not surprised at some of the things their supporters are coming out with.

Also, 'wealthy people shouldn't get the winter fuel allowance' was a no brainer argument - before somebody tried to implement it.

I suppose that what you have failed to account for is the fact that a pension is generally something that you've paid into whilst you worked and then you receive a pension based on the fact that you've contributed. State pension is based on national insurance contribution years.

Do you seriously think that it would be OK to say to someone: OK, you've worked hard and contributed NI for 45 years - now go and fuck yourself, you're not having any state pension?

Your stroke of genius basically amounts to theft and deception - of honest taxpayers.

I will also point out that when I worked as a student, I didn't pay enough NI during those years for the years to count. So I topped those years up with voluntary contributions when I was working in my 20s. That was to secure my pension. It would literally be deception and theft if I was not allowed to receive my state pension that I secured in good faith.

Is that you Reeves? Shaking that piggy bank again furiously are we?

Everyone lost their shit when the Government announced plans to means test the winter fuel payment. Good luck withstanding the Daily Mail/Telegraph confected outrage at this proposal 😬