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?

I agree. I'm not in the UK but people here in their 70s are generally fit and healthy, and many in their early 80s also. Are people in the UK really as unhealthy as MN seems to think?

Is it fair for everyone who has worked hard for their entire lives and contributed towards the education, healthcare, childcare of younger generations whilst doing it to be left to die poor?

How have we saved an awful lot by not having children? I have fuck all saved because I can’t afford to have a pension because I’m paying tax.

That’s fine but they need to set up an option so we can take the burden off the state completely by choosing to die.

As a 58 year old who’s worked for over 40 years mainly full-time, I’d like a full refund of my huge NI contributions if the state pension disappears before I hit 67. Hopefully I’ll survive long enough. I’ve barely used the NHS personally (nor has nuclear family) and, my children have been privately educated. Before anyone jumps on me, I realise NI contributions cover more than health and education costs.
So, yes, I have paid an enormous amount into our society and I’m 100% not bothered about that; as a relatively high earner, it’s my duty as a civilised member of society. However, I absolutely will be bothered if I can’t have my state pension in 9 years time.

Looking around, unfortunately yes. There are lots of people well under 60s in mobility scooters or can’t walk. Obesity is a big problem.

Why? I think a combination of reasons. Junk food is cheaper and easier than eating well, the weather makes it hard to exercise for half the year and I also think the weather has a big effect on mental health.

Also a controversial take is I think some of the benefits on offer can make a life being ill/ unhealthy more attractive. I have a close family member on PIP who seems to feel guilty if she tries to get better, as she gets PIP based on her current illness. It’s very frustrating as she won’t engage well with treatment and I think part of it is she would feel like a fraud if she improved but still receiving benefits - as she’s been more reluctant to try since getting the payments.

I know that won’t be the case for all people on benefits of course, and I do support the benefit system, but sometimes I think it could deter people from trying to recover (if they have a condition that they could recover from).

I’ve thought like this for a while. Whilst the pensioners are cheering about the triple lock and demanding it stays in place, I feel that they’re not really understanding who’s paying for it. Whilst technically speaking I’m fine with it because at the end of the day, I ‘should’ receive it, if things carry on as they are who’s going to be left to fund it? There should be mandatory education on pensions at school and maybe that would increase uptake on them and maybe people would choose their employer more wisely eg choose a slightly lower wage in favour of better pension contributions. That’s what I’ve done by working for the NHS and then Civil Service.

You have certainly saved a lot of money by not having a child. It's estimated around £260k in total. If you put all that money away in a pension pot or savings scheme then you wouldn't die poor.

As for the child costing the state money. We have no way to judge that until they die and then assess their contributions versus their withdrawals from the system. This can include formal work but also potentially caring for you when you get old and alleviating that burden from state. Nothing is guaranteed of course but 30% of elderly people rely on children for their care so it's pretty significant.

In summary, you're not doing anyone a favour by not having a child. You aren't necessarily costing the state less money unless you can guarantee that your child will be a net beneficiary of the state which none of us can do. In fact there is every chance your child would be a contributor.

But that will be the case for everyone who works. If you claim a SP for 20 years for example, that means young people will need to fund the SP for another 30 years from now by paying NI. In 30 years I’ll be mid 60s and saying the same thing you are - that I’ve paid for 45 years and want mine.

Point is if they cancel it, there will be a group who has paid their whole life but received nowt. It’s just a question of which group that will be. Unless they carry it on forever in its current form, but is that sustainable?

As an aside, I think your age group with less than 10 years to go is pretty safe. It’s people below 45ish who have to worry, as there’s a real possibility we will be paying our whole lives but then face a retirement age of 70+ or never at all.

We can afford wars and all sorts when it suits. The least we can do is finance the elderly.

This topic makes my head explode. My understanding is that there are currently thousands of young people, many with degrees that cost them ££££, unable to get a job because there aren’t any. Why do we need more immigration when we have British born people unable to find a job and therefore almost certainly claiming benefits? If it’s skills then change it so more vocational courses are offered. If there aren’t any jobs these young people aren’t funding anything, they are costing taxpayers.

Whats the point of encouraging people to have more children if there aren’t any jobs or if those jobs are so poorly paid they have to be topped up with benefits? Additionally there seems to be a massive increase in young people with disabilities, many of whom can’t work so they are costing the taxpayer billions and will never ‘pay in’.

Going to work needs to pay, we’re at a cliff edge where for many it doesn’t, they can’t pay all the bills let alone save for a pension. Those on benefits, in many cases, are better off and will be funded from cradle to grave. Meanwhile those of us working and paying tax are expected to fund every aspect of our lives and fund things for everyone else who can’t or won’t work.

In my case I’ll get the state pension but I’ve also got a SIPP and savings. I think it’s disgusting that people are expecting others to pay pay pay and get nothing.

Like I said, I don't expect you to feel guilty about not having children, I have none myself

What support do you think we shouldn't be paying towards families though in order to pay more to those in retirement. I don't think we are particularly penalised for being child free in the tax system at the moment, although I do disagree with some politicians that have said they want to increase taxes on women who don't have children to try to incentivise women to have children, that is madness. But I don't begrudge a single mother claiming universal credit and child benefit to ensure her child doesn't go hungry or the extra hours of free childcare to allow women to work more which ultimately helps them to work more hours and likely pay more taxes in the future as they won't have had career breaks etc

No I spent it on silly things like food, housing etc.

I wont be paying for care if i dont want it. I want the option of euthanasia. If the state insist on keeping me alive, they can pay for the privilege.

As for pension, similar situation: if the state want me to retire because a) I'm not effective at work or b) they want greater youth employment and I'm job-blocking, they can pay me.

I've worked all my life, contributed to many things I thankfully don't need and tbh I think gov could greatly cut costs elsewhere before I shoulder yet more of the country's costs.

Most of them do understand perfectly well who is paying for it. But they think they are entitled to it as they paid for pensioners back when they were working. However, they ignore the fact that when they were working there was 1. Less pensioners 2. The state pension amount was paltry and 3. Triple lock didn’t exist until 2010. Even winter fuel didn’t exist their whole working lives, that was brought in the late 90s.

So when pensioners were working they wanted to pay their parents and grandparents a crap state pension, which caused real pensioner poverty as many pensioners pre-millennium had zero private pension. This was especially bad for women who had never worked, my grandmother and great grandmother for example both had to be financially helped by their children when they were elderly. That’s why the winter fuel payment and triple lock was introduced, to combat pensioner poverty.

However, the pensioners we have now are largely not in the same situation as the generations before them, with many having good private pensions and benefited massively from the housing market. They receive better state pensions in relative terms than the generations before them ever did.

Before anyone jumps at me I know not every single pensioner is rich, especially those who worked for employers who offered no private pension for most of their working life. But as a generation, they are much much better off than the pensioners they funded ever were, so it just isn’t true to say they paid the same while they were working as the policies they enjoy now (triple lock) didn’t exist 16 years ago.

And of course, you also have those who believe their NI contributions went into a special pot with their name on it.

I feel very sorry for young people who can’t find a job. The job market is so competitive. But re. Immigration, it’s because immigrants are prepared to do the jobs someone with a degree wouldn’t want to do. My local care home seems to be staffed mostly by immigrants, as I can’t imagine someone with a degree wanting to consider working there on minimum wage.

I don’t particularly want to get old in the kind of society that judges me for not having children and ignores my contribution to society.

Nobody has to begrudge what families get but I do begrudge paying in when those who are getting the benefit of it see ME as a drain on society.

So when the time comes I am looking at options because I am not living in that environment where I’m left to starve because of my choices.

The education they need in schools is not just about pensions, it should be on benefits. I get sick of hearing how the state pension is a benefit as if anyone who gets it is just taking. Many who get it have paid in all their lives not into their own pot but they’ve paid into the system. We’ve now got loads who pay nothing in and get shed loads for free.

And many of them probably shouldn’t have gone to uni and accrued that debt and flooded the job market with graduates but since ‘Call Me Tony’ was PM, it seems to be seen as a given

Not really true with the NHS in the state it's in. Public health is not going to be improving in the next couple of decades.

The idea that you get your pension when you have enough years of NI contributions is responsible for people thinking that they've paid in and that's what earns them their particular pension. It might help if they reframed that.

I genuinely think that they need to give people that option. It probably won’t cost too much and would sort the problem

I have to buy those things for me and my children. Families with children are more likely to experience poverty for obvious reasons. The basics cost more, you need to fund childcare and often have less flexibility when it comes to employment and finding higher paid work.

You seem unable to recognise these advantages and instead perceive yourself as someone that is somehow saving everyone else money and contributing more than everyone else. Most parents will raise children and work. This has potential double benefit for society.

It's fine to choose not to have children but it's not really fair to expect to not contribute towards the next generation when you need them as much as anyone else.

Yes I agree but I think there are slow and small changes coming in to change that narrative. My National Insurance account has changed and seems less clear on that than it used to be.

It’s not just the number of years, if you’re a higher PAYE earner then you also contribute a heck of a lot more NI. Far more ( 3 x more in my case per yr) than than the £973 or whatever it is to buy a missing NI year. I don’t care about that until it becomes radically unfair.

Yep, I am the same. But I am grateful for being able to get a mortgage in 1997 which means I am now mortgage free at 51. I don't think many people in the generations below me will be able to say that, so I am thankful for small mercies and just keep going.

It is a benefit. You can get full years on your ‘stamp’ for not even working - if you get benefits, have children etc you get a full year on your record. I have a family member who had their first child at 18 and their last at 45. She had a full NI record due to having children under a certain age for most of her life, so got a full state pension. She was a SAHM and never worked in paid employment, but it’s an example of how it’s possible.

It is a benefit in the same way Jobseekers Allowance is a benefit if you’ve paid NI for the last couple of years.