To think when the state pension is removed, the social contract is broken?

[JulyJulyNovember]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8e2yp1gg37o

It seems likely that in due course, the universal state pension will be withdrawn. At this point, I don’t see how there will be any incentive for young people to build wealth here.

I don’t think poor pensioners should be homeless, but I don’t think they should be provided for in large, unsuitable council houses or in nursing homes where places cost thousands a week. We are moving to a more individualistic world.

I'm not attacking you. Why are you denying that young people share houses?

The only young professional I know that doesn’t live in a shared flat has a trust fund that bought his flat for him.

Surely the newer pensioners get more because they had to work until 66/67 before they could claim pension whereas older pensioners could claim pension from 60 if female or 65 if male.

What age are you terming as “young”?

What age? Same as I asked to Bellic

One year difference for men when it was introduced, and at one point, they needed 44 years of NI contributions for the full, basic pension at 65. Women, as you say, got theirs earlier. The first women to get the new SP had to be 63 in 2016, the age has since increased along with men’s.

As already pointed out, many older women got no NI credits for being a SAHM, and there was no CB for first child until1979. My older child was eight before I got it for both.

So many changes to pensions and benefits over the years, hard to keep up. But it’s annoying when pensions are quoted as around £240, when that’s only the newer rate, the old basic rate is £184.

By deliberately restricting housing supply

By raising taxes to the highest point since the war

By loading graduates with high interest debt

By addinglayer upon layer of red tape, crushing businesses thus negatively impacting job openings

Nail on the head. Too many people don’t bother to understand the issues faced by the younger generation most of whom want to work and succeed but are hammered in so many ways.

It's nothing to do with deprived areas!!! What a stupid comment. Young people share houses because it is much cheaper than renting a place by themselves. the same as they've done for as long as I can remember.

You obviously live in a little bubble with no idea about the real world.

They’ve usually moved on by 30

Actually for the younger generations the issue will be underpopulation and an aging population.
You need more people paying into the system through tax than drawing pensions. The low birth rate will be an issue for tax in 20 years.

My siblings and I all shared flats/houses with other young people in our mid twenties as we were starting out. This would be in the mid-90s to early 2000s. I would say it's been fairly standard for a long time, particularly if moving to London and one of the big cities, and if you don't know anyone it can be a good way to meet people.

That's not to deny that's it's harder for younger people to get on the housing market than it was for us.

Yes exactly.

The ageing population.

Do people not understand how the UK state pension scheme works?

There are so many weird posts about utterly unconnected dog whistle topics and myths on this thread!

That’s nonsense. A PP posted data upthread indicating that public sector employees are already paid about 7% more. And are we just ignoring the >20% employer contribution, in this fantasy world where you can defer a few quid and receive index linked payments for life?

I have skin in the game in the form of DH’s fantastic NHS pension. But it’s important to compare apples with apples, and this tiresome gaslighting about how terrible public sector pay and pensions are needs to get in the bin, along with “the NHS is the envy of the world”.

Nail on the head. It's a myth that public sector salaries are much lower than private, certainly at the bottom end of the scale. Fair enough, a "top" doctor may be able to earn hugely more in the private sector, but for the majority of the staff who aren't "top" in their fields, the public sector is a perfectly good remuneration and the pensions are the icing on the cake.

It's not nonsense. Pension is deferred salary and a greater % is deferred.

The employer % is a red herring - the employer contribution rate has no impact on the pension received.

At no point did I say that public sector pay and pension is terrible; please don't put words into my mouth. Though i do agree with you re the NHS.

State pensions aren't deferred salary - presumably you are talking about employer contributory pension schemes?

The thread is about state pensions, which cannot in any remotely convincing ways be framed as deferred salary.

So the employer contribution has no bearing on the amount received (nor presumably the duration of payments)? And you can’t see the tiniest fly in the ointment?

Are you aware of how pensions work for most people? The type of pension that private sector employers have decided is affordable and sustainable bears no relation at all to what you have described. And the private sector is ultimately paying all public sector contributions, employer and employee.

If we’re going to remove the SP from “rich” pensioners, let’s sort this massive injustice first. The vast majority of wealthy pensioners are living on public sector pensions that most of us can only dream of.

Of course I understand how pensions work 🙄 Both types. Better than you seem to if you don't realise that the current high rate of employer contributions is used to fund existing pensioners.

Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I haven't described anything. You obviously have some axe to grind. The private sector isn't paying all contributions, they come from the public purse which is part funded by individual tax payers - all of them.

Ultimately, everyone has choices to make. If private sector employees make the lowest possible contributions and choose jam today, that's on them. It's not a race to the bottom.

Obviously I was talking about workplace pensions. Did you read the comment I was replying to?

What age is this young professional?

How is housing supply restricted?

Not all graduates have high interest debt.

What red tape and in what jobs?

I could sink to your very low level and call your posts stupid too. But I won't.

You also live in a bubble if you think all young people move into shared homes and rent.

The private sector is the only way to create wealth, so yes all contributions to public sector pensions by anybody can ultimately be attributed to private capital.

I have the opposite of an axe to grind: I’ve quite clearly written that I intend to spend my retirement living mainly off my DH’s insanely generous NHS DB pension, and long may that continue. It’s accuracy I am after: the disparity between public and private sector schemes is not because private sector employees “choose jam today” FGS. It’s because they are - typically - not DB, not index-linked and not lifelong guaranteed. Those are not things that can be funded by a bit of “salary deferral” as you laughably suggested in your first post.

If the SP is unfair and needs sorting, then so does this debacle. As I wrote upthread, you can’t sensibly take £184 a month off Boris while most retired consultant doctors struggle on their £90k-odd a year.

Well you don't have to dream about it as your husband is getting one. A huge one.
You do realise that public sector workers taxes aren't seperated by the govt and that they ALL pay for the same things as private sector workers do including pension contributions for every other public sector worker?

Plus all these "lucky" public service workers are STILL PAYING TAX.