Who is going to pay for your state pension/ care in old age?

[itsadlibitum]

Apparently birth rates are falling, and this is putting future pensions (and I would imagine general tax income) in jeopardy as the population will proportionally age.

What's the solution? Should we just write off our paid for "right" to a state pension and state support for care in older age?

Does this change your view on public investment in supporting people to have children if you otherwise thought this was a personal choice and you should support/ pay for your own children?

AIBU to think that NI contributions for "pension" is essentially government mandated mis-selling and state pension will go out the window in the next few decades?

Unfortunately, the tax/benefits system encourages the opposite.

NIC isn't only for state pension, it's for other benefits too, plus some towards the NHS.

There was a time in the 80s and 90s when you could "contract out", pay 2% less NIC, but that 2% paid into your private pension instead. But, as with most things cocked up by subsequent governments, the scheme was scrapped.

If my state pension is removed I want my NI contributions removed.

We need to encourage people to make provision for their own retirement. Everybody should have a base level state pension and then people can top that up with private pension.

We don't need immigration. We need to get our own young people working. We have nearly a million NEETS and thousands of over 50s unemployed, not through choice. We also have rising unemployment.

I would however be in favour of family friendly tax policies.

Like PP, I don't expect to have a state pension or factor it into my pension plan at all. I'd be happy to reduce and/or opt out of NI payments to state pension entirely and fund it myself through private pension.

I was born in the 90s so am expecting to have to work until I drop dead - I suspect my parents will be the last cohort to receive a state pension and retire at a sensible age.

Really?! That sounds like something that should be considered now? I arrived in the UK in 1998 and have paid NI since. I don't expect I'll get a state pension and would rather take whatever % there is to my private pension.

"Most" people aren't at all. I know very few people who are in full good health in their 70s. Both my father and DH's father didn't even make it to 70, my father never even retired when he died in his 60s. My DH got incurable cancer in his 50s (not lifestyle related). My mother in law suffered dementia from her late 60s. My brother has all kinds of health complications and he's only early 60s. There's only my mother who lived in to her 80s relatively healthily out of my immediate family.

Among my client base (fairly small number, around 50 or so), several have died from breast cancer in their 50s, a handful of others are battling cancer, a couple of had serious blood clots, a couple have had heart attacks, one had an aneurysm - again, all in their 50s and 60s.

The most common topic of conversation amongst my clients, friends, family, etc., amongst us 60+ year olds is GP and hospital appointments, mostly for pretty serious illnesses/diseases!

I will also never, ever be able to afford to have children. Frankly, the social contract has been broken. Why should I work for decades to pay for others' pensions when it will never be "my turn"?

And private health care?

Nail on the head.

"We need to encourage people to make provision for their own retirement. Everybody should have a base level state pension and then people can top that up with private pension."

Many millions do just that and I'd hazard a guess many don't expect to even get a state pension and are paying into private and relying on that instead. So why should we pay into a base level state pension when the guardrails are constantly moving and the government would like you to work until you drop dead and don't claim it?

Thank you 😊

Definitely. I think that there should be some kind of subsidy/partial repayment/tax relief for people who save the NHS money by paying for private health treatments.

Mines the same!

I don’t pay into a private pension and I’m unlikely to get an state pension - that’s why I will work for as long as I can and then check out - so those of you who think we should encourage a higher birth rate should be happy with that

Big pharma needs to be forced to contribute to paying towards the longevity with chronic issues paradigm they've created.

But who will they call if they need an ambulance?

i haven’t read the whole thread but what worries me is all of us having to stay in work until age 70. Where will these jobs come from, in the age of AI? And if we don’t move on, where will young people work?

I work in the city and i can’t think of a single person I’ve worked with who was over 60 apart from some CEOs and board chairs etc. I’m late 40s, high earner, and I can’t see myself doing my job past the next 5 years. The only option for me is to move onto something even more senior and better paid and max out pensions and try to earn as much as possible before I’m on my way down.

We don't need immigration. We need to get our own young people working. We have nearly a million NEETS and thousands of over 50s unemployed, not through choice. We also have rising unemployment

There are 3.5m economically inactive over 50s but many due to ill health.

That's if the government don't push the state pension age up again.

I agree with this too. Especially competing with people far younger. I’m a lawyer and can see who would have me at 72 vs an energetic and more up to date 30 something.

Everyone I know.

@Hellohelga so why have you extrapolated that to most people?!

No, they don't need children. They need immigrants who come here after having done their education/ qualifications elsewhere, costing the tax payer nothing as another country's taxpayer has covered the costs, paying tax for 40-45 years, and retiring abroad.

Children cost the tax payer a huge amount of money and are a gamble in terms of return on investment. Working adults coming in at no cost are a much more definite bet.

And yes of course there are exceptions but as a whole, cultivating a future tax payer at great cost vs getting one with no 20-year lead-up investment makes better fiscal sense, right?

If someone offered you 30K in tax a year starting tomorrow, or 30K in tax a year starting in 2047, but first you have to pay 10K a year for 20 years, which is the financially sound choice?

And yes, this post is deliberately provocative.