To be glad triple lock going and hope they means test it too

[Randomamsi]

I have a multi millionaire senior relative who receives £1,400 from the state pension each month, in addition to 6k private pension.

He's not means tested and he's received that for 30 years. Yes, he paid into the system but he does not need it!!! He also had free uni, dirt cheap first house back in the 60s and retired aged 59.

Meanwhile the younger generation:

• thousands in student loan debt
• asset poor as can't get on the housing ladder
• means tested for child benefit, tax free childcare etc
• working until late 60s/ 70s

Why do pensioners have it easy while younger ones pay the price?

For vulnerable pensioners at risk of poverty, there should obviously be provision to help them, I'm not suggesting we let people starve. But multimillionaire pensioners or very asset rich pensioners do NOT need the state pension. It's about time things changed.

This. It does not come automatically you have to claim it and you can choose not to do so.

How much have you paid in NI, over your lifetime, compared to your relative?

How much have you contributed to the economy, compared to your relative?

Have you worked that out?

Use your eyes and read the numerous comments on the thread which explain this.

He is on the old pension scheme which gives an additional amount due to SERPS.
My mother gets over £330 a week for her state pension.

My Dad received £1400pm. I know this for a fact, as I did all his banking.

The pension should not be a reward. No benefits should be a reward. They should be based on need. A family with children are more in need of state help than a penioner who has a higher monthly income than the family.

Well, they were talking about tightening the criteria for PIP/DLA, and reigning back on any up lift to means tested benefits.

But, it’ll be a struggle getting a vote through anyway.

Umm Scotland also has to pay for care and has the highest rates of income tax out of all 4 countries in the UK

Yes, if you’ve got SERPS on top, it will be higher. But then it’s taxable. 🤷‍♀️

Agree, Labour thrive on this rhetoric.

Benefits should be based on contribution, not need. The only thin basing them on need achieves is more "needy" people.

This is nonsense...better off people obviously contribute more. Therefore by your reckoning the more wealthy should receive more benefits than poorer people. The country cannot afford some sort of weird congratulatory benefit scheme.

Ex benefit adviser here. It’s absolutely not the case that all those earning £34k will be entitled to £500 top up. Entitlement would be specific to circumstances.

UC eligibility is calculated on net household income, childcare costs and housing expenses, not simply gross salary. DWP use a specific formula to work out entitlement.

In this case a 34k income works out at around £2833 gross, per month. After tax, NI and an allowable 5% pension contribution, take-home pay is around £2191 per month. If a claimant has children or a disability, the DWP applies a work allowance, meaning a portion of their earnings is ignored before any deductions are made. If they receive help with rent, their work allowance is £427, if they don’t it’s £710.

Working on the £2191 figure and £427 work allowance, with 55% taper rate (55p deduction from UC award for every £1 earned above the work allowance) the DWP would apply the following calculation.

Assessed earnings £2191 minus the £427 work allowance equals £1764. So the total UC deduction would be 55% of £1764. So £927.20. So if this household’s maximum UC entitlement made up of the elements outlined above exceed £1470.20 the top up will be exactly £500. It absolutely doesn’t apply to a salary of £34k as standard, it’s calculated on household income.

OMG, what you're fundamentally missing here, is that Pensioners have paid NI their whole lives, in expectation of the Pension. They have PAID IN. Even though some will argue there isn't a pot, they supported the Pensioners of yesteryear, it's all word salad, we all know that we paid NI in an expectation of getting a pension ourselves, when it was our turn.

People claiming UC or PIP or whatever, have paid in Jack Shit.

You are not comparing like with like.

How about this - how would you feel, if you saved into an ISA for the next 50 years, and then, when you decided to withdraw some money, as you want to stop working, your Bank said you didn't need the money, because you have a nice house and a few quid in another account, so they are going to give your money to someone more needy. How do you like those apples?

Ni is taken with your paycheck...you have no choice in this. We should just call it tax because thats what it is.

I think the triple lock and universal pension is unaffordable and that the UK is going to have to face up this and make changes.
I think that changes have to have a sufficient lead time in for people to be able to plan and adjust to them.
I don't think that pointing to 1 individual with a £6k private pension and saying that you deserve taxpayer support more than they do is justified.
As a pp has explained, if they are receiving £7k+ a month in pension, they will be paying c£2k a month in tax - which is more than the state pension you say they are receiving.

People claiming UC or PIP or whatever, have paid in Jack Shit

Not necessarily. People may have lost their jobs having previously worked. They may have suffered from ill health after previously being well.

The one thing that makes me think we should protect triple lock is the future generations.
once it’s gone, it’s gone. Currently generation rent are paying through the nose for rent, the reality is most won’t be able to save enough for renting through their retirement, they also may be trying to prioritise saving for a house not a pension.
which means the triple lock really will be needed for them.

i appreciate it needs paying for though.

Seeing as your income is over £100k, you are obviously one of the wealthy people who will have no need for a state pension.

Excuse me. Where do you get the impression that those who are on UC or PIP have paid ‘Jack shit’ as you so charmingly put it ? Many of those claiming PIP are in work, and many more have worked and contributed, and can no longer do so - hence claiming PIP. UC claimants may also have worked in the past - contributory benefits are calculated on the last two years NI contributions so it’s quite possible for people to miss out by a couple of months and have to claim UC instead. Very judgemental.

He will be paying tax on his pension as it is over the annual personal allowance.

Unless he showed you his bank statements you are a snooper and nosy parker.

So presumably any savings they would make from abolishing the triple lock will be spent on other benefits for this group of people, with little going into the social care pot. To fully fund social care will likely require a similar contribution as NI which is currently 8% on earnings between £242.01 and £967 a week. I wonder how many basic rate tax payers will be happy to contribute that.

I agree that NI and tax should be combined. Pensioners do not pay NI so that is a specific way that pensioners have an "advantage" over working age population.

But the idea that paying NI over working life means you have paid in for a pension is not financially sound. At an average £50k salary, someone would have paid c£3k a year of NI - say £120k over a 40 year working life. Claiming back £12k a year in pension clearly would only "last" 10 years rather than the 20, 30 years someone may expect to draw one for. And NI in theory funds more than pensions. The UK needs to face up to the facts and stop obscuring things behind different names.

@Justaquestionplease gets is. The previous generation understood war and that you give even your life sometimes for future generations— yet there are people on this thread apoplectic that they may have paid in to a contributory tax for the common good, that they shouldn’t take if they don’t need. I think the attitude stinks and you can see why many of the younger think it is unfair. But I guess it all depends on what kind of society you want to live in.

My uncle gets a similar amount, maybe more.

They're probably implying most working claimants are not overall net contributors, which most people aren't, particularly if they have children.