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It seems likely that in due course, the universal state pension will be withdrawn.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.

Yes I'm not questioning the morality of it and my mum is fine with it, I'm asking whether there are figures out there showing whether the pension part of the benefit bill includes the tax paid by those pensioners.

Obviously that would mean DWP and HMRC combining their figures.

The political will is not there to cut Foreign Aid. Once we are bankrupt, that Foreign Aid budget will be zero.

The young leavers are not getting a pension. They are getting a return on investment.

Under my scheme, the young leavers cannot come back in their 60s and get a pension. They would either have to make provisions in the country they emigrated to and bring it back here to fund their retirement or stay in the country they emigrated to.

It should be means tested, including property value. Those who need it because otherwise they’d be destitute should get a state pension. Everyone else should not be entitled to one.

Imagine you are a politician with an eye on winning the next election. You can slash the Foreign Aid budget, which must be a very low priority for most voters, to fund something popular like tax cuts or an increase in say child benefit. There must be a reason why that is not already happening.

I am confused about young leavers under your scheme. Do they forfeit their investment on emigrating, or not?

So robbing people who have paid National Insurance all their life ?

Can't feel the love, myself ...

Means tested pensions will come in slowly. Eventually the same will apply as it does now, you'll be OK if you have nothing and OK if you have loads. The rest in the middle will carry on supporting the really poor and rich.

I agree. It wont be abolished but it won't go up. Its not enough to live on as it is and needs to be topped up by pension credit for those who haven't bothered saving or paying into a private pension.

It will come in with a relatively high threshold, i.e. £60k or £100k income, which will not increase, so "fiscal drag" will mean more and more people are excluded as the years/decades pass. It's the only way it can ever happen. With a very high threshold, there'll be relatively few objections and it won't be as much of a political hot potato.

Exactly , no incentive to really go to work and better yourself . I can’t see this ever happening .

@Badbadbunny 60 k is not a high income if you live in an expensive area .

And what happens if all those people who want property prices to crash gets their wish? Loads of people on here saying something needs to be done about property prices etc. So what happens when a house that is 700k now is only worth 300k? A lot more people will now be much poorer than they otherwise would have been.

Council tax happened anyway though.

Anyway it's already happening. Drip, drip, drip - like boiling a frog, no big announcement, gradually pushed older and older. Eventually it will be replaced by an unable to work pension which will be based on fittness not age.

The blip of decade upon decade of healthy, energetic, youngish retired people receiving an income from younger workers and feeling utterly and completely entitled to a very , very long, active holiday in retirement before actually ageing past the point of being fit to work is something even most of us in our 50s will not get to enjoy, and certainly our kids won't.

Agree. I'd argue the majority of people now probably can't afford to pay into a private pension. I can't. My outgoings (old car, modest home, no holidays) eat up all of my income and I'm frequently in the red. With the COL as it is, private pensions are unaffordable for a lot of us.

By the time gen z are ready to retire, the bulge of baby boomers will have passed. It will be the generation below them who pay for their pensions. The answer is to have lots of kids themselves.

There is a law that says we have to pay foreign aid isn't there?

Although I think the triple lock should be looked at again, and changed in some way it should also be noted that MPs got a bigger increase this year than state pensioners….. Many of whom have other incomes or second jobs, which is another discussion!

Those who would be destitute ought to have taken some responsibility for their lives at an earlier time, no?

No because thats ignoring how capitalism works.

Same here. I'm sixty two and bloody shattered already. DH retired ages ago and potters about all day. I am jealous.

The government is banking on many others dying off before being able to claim their state pensions...it will work in their favour so they don't need to cough up.

as i understand that was the economic reasoning originally when they were created ?

No, a young leaver would keep the investment, just like they keep the pension they have built up with NI contributions. In fact, I would enable them to add to it, even if they lived abroad.

In the first 67 years of my plan, all it would cost the government is the initial seed money and any time after that, it wouldn't cost the government a penny, due to people paying the seed money from their tax-free lump sums.

For the UK government the plan looks like a long term investment with built-in future savings, rather than future costs, like the pyramid scheme operating now.

I'm 40 and my suspicion is that the triple lock will go, but pension credit will be protected, such that state pension gradually inflates away, leaving pension credit as the (means tested) safety net.

Its prettt crap, my pension saving was based on having private topped up with state and I'm now having to move to putting huge amounts in pension to make up the expected shortfall. That said im luckier than most so I'll be ok.

I would hate to live in this kind of accommodation as an elderly person. How do you get to decide that a person doesn't deserve dignity and choice in their later years?

The BBC article is speculation. I do wish people would stop catastrophising. Just deal with situations as they arise instead of protecting misery before it's happened. Plan for the future, with caveats for worst case scenario.

When state pensions were first introduced in the UK pension age was 70 and average life expectancy at birth was 50, due to infant mortality and maternal deaths related to child birth amongst other factors killing the young. For those who actually survived until age 70, average life expectancy from that point was 78 for men and 79 for women - so the minority who actually survived to pension age received a pension for on average 8 or 9 years.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/articles/howhaslifeexpectancychangedovertime/2015-09-09

Those who got to retire at 60 and 65 in the early 2000s receive/ d a pension for an average of twenty years - obviously many still receive one.

Pensions were never meant to provide the majority with two decades of free time, which is what the majority of those born in the sweet spot got.

It was meant to provide a few years of dignity for those who lived to be too old to work.

It's shit, but the experience of one generation has given the false impression we can all expect decades of good health after finishing work. We're not going to get that.