£610 a week pension demand is insane

[Thisismyfinesthour]

Just read that there is an online petition doing the rounds for a £610 a WEEK pension demand to the government.
WTAF? Is the heat melting some peoples brains? It seems over 5000 have signed it.
Where do they think the money is coming from?

I don't think many here believe pensioners, to a person are rich. However, what I, and several others have tried to point out, is that pensioners are in fact by far and a way the wealthiest demographic. People have used statistics to back this up, whereas opponents have used emotion and anecdote.

While a signification proportion are not wealthy, by and large, if there is a good shake of the magic money tree, its fruit should not be directed towards this demographic much more than it already is as they are proportionately well catered for.

You actually wrote “employed a crack team of contract experts from the Big 4” so I was politely ignoring the fact that you don’t appear to know the difference between ‘employ’ and ‘engage’, or that accountants - even the sainted Big 4 ones - don’t generally advise on legal contracts between parties.

I’ve no idea why the contracts were so piss-poor because I don’t work in that field. I do know that the schedules and appendices of those contracts filled entire rooms, which makes me doubt whether those who negotiated and signed them on both sides had even the most cursory understanding of all the implications.

@Everanewbie I'm sure you are well aware that it includes the value of pension pots - so the money that will have to live on for the rest of their lives - plus, if they have one, the house they live in. I wonder what the value of your pension pot and your house will be when you get to pension age.

When I said employ, I meant directly employ on PAYE contracts. I know law firms were engaged. Your last sentence is entirely correct and supports my point.

Yes I am aware that the £1m figure includes the home and the pension. I would regard a £1m net worth as fairly wealthy. When you add a baseline of £25k p.a. for a couple with full basic state pension, £1m looks pretty good to me. Plus £1m is the starting point for the stat. Some within that 27% will have way in excess of that.

Well, quite. My first point was actually agreeing with you, whilst pointing out that expensive legal advice had been sought, but it seems you can’t polish a turd.

Do you think they got their house free?

Clearly not. But they bought at a significantly lower multiple of average earnings and received tax relief on the interest. And benefited from years of untaxed growth. I don't begrudge them it but it must be noted when discussing wealth.

I received FA tax allowance on my interest.

What are your circumstances?

Do you not think that this thread has run its course? All it now contains is arguing over opposing viewpoints.

None of your business. Make your case on facts, not bickering with me.

It was only available for mortgages up to £30k. My first house cost more than double that so I never got it.

You're making other people's circumstances your business.

The Government don’t and won’t pay sufficient salaries to directly employ many top professionals in law, finance, economics or anything else. They have to contract private providers to do this because while public sector salaries are generally quite generous for lower skilled roles they are incredibly poor for highly skilled professionals.

The money saved would have paid many times over to pay those people market rate. Particularly as it would have been for a discrete project.

Exactly. It seems to be the numerically challenged who are continually unable to distinguish between statistical nationwide data and their personal experiences/ those of their immediate acquaintances. I really do not understand how anybody even passes YR6 SAT tests with such a poor grasp of what constitutes evidence or statistically reliable data.

Take that up with Governments that spend 50% of total tax revenue raised on 15% of the population meaning that all other necessary services and investments which might improve economic growth and value for money for taxpayers are underfunded (for example, decent quality of education and accessible training, infrastructure, industrial strategy supporting key UK growth sectors and appropriate public sector pay to attract highly competent professionals in law and accounting and economics to ensure this happens).

Who is stating figures now without adjusting for inflation?

As you accused me of doing, when in fact I had not.

The hypocrisy is mind boggling.

No. It is “arguing” between those referring to facts and data and those asserting that their “viewpoints” or “opinions” are of equal value even when they directly contradict all publicly available data. As you did yourself, in fact.

Goodness me. Do you really not understand the level of asset value inflation above general inflation or the inflation of earnings for the same occupations, over the last few decades?

If not, you really should not be commenting on a thread about economics and especially not one specifically discussing generational outcomes for similar levels of work and achievement.

Take that up with Governments that spend 50% of total tax revenue raised on 15% of the population

Since pensions are 11.8 of government spending and the entire health budget is 20.9%, that is extremely dubious.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-public-spending-was-calculated-in-your-tax-summary/how-public-spending-was-calculated-in-your-tax-summary

The £30k Miras was never adjusted for inflation, it remained the same.

Are you always this rude?

Nope, MIRAS was available on the first £30k of a mortgage, even if the mortgage was over £30k.

Average house prices were under £30k up to the mid 80s, so most average people would have got full tax relief on ALL their mortgage up to the mid 80s.

What should be looked at is attendance allowance being non means tested. Its crazy that a very wealthy pensioner can be eligible for this benefit.