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.

just to point out that the triple lock is not going. What has been said is that changing it will be part of the manifesto package at the next general election.

Sadly, we didn't have crystal balls that would enable us to foresee this.

And when we were paying 15% interest on our mortgages, we couldn't afford to save.

He has paid his taxes and worked, so should get his state pension.

The pension is for all and this includes the hard working and the feckless.

YABU to base your views on the Triple lock for all pensioners based on one person.
With that level of income, your relative will still be paying income tax.

Maybe you should spend some time getting your facts right. As it has been explained numerous times. It is possible to have a up to £415 a week under the old state pension.

And what about people on good salaries taking home well over £3K a month still getting child benefit they don't need.....

Actually not. There are more than 4 weeks in a month. There are 52 1/7 weeks in a year, so

£241 * 52 1/7 = £12 556.43

£12556.43/12 = £1,046.369

@AllIwantForChrismasIsAKitchenAidStandMixer This is hilarious. And ill informed.

As a late boomer ( I'm 63 ) I have worked since I was 13. I worked full time from graduation until I was made redundant in July. I have 45 years NI paid because I worked through 6th form and uni. I paid higher rate tax for 37 years, a net contributor.

For the last 18 years I have raised ds by myself. I didn't go part time or claim benefits. I carried on running my department. Everything I have done during that time has been to ensure my ds had a secure home and a good childhood after his dad walked away.

Now out of work, I am supporting my ds at university, and will do my best to wipe out his student debt. The govt will benefit by getting their money back. I'm currently looking for a part time job while relying on my DC pension to feed us and pay the bills.

I'm also a parish councillor (unpaid), a trustee of the residents association (unpaid) and before having ds I volunteered for a search & rescue team for eight years (unpaid).

I know I am not selfish and have paid my way. So many of my similarly aged friends are the same, volunteering in retirement, supporting families, providing free childcare. We are the generation that raised you.

3k a month isn't very much if you have dependent children.

And you, are yet another poster who does not know what they are on about.

Its plenty, hardly on the breadline.

And anyway, why should people be paid for having children? If you can't afford them, don't have them!

We all don't have multi millionaire relatives like you

If you're paying for childcare, particularly full time childcare then it's not a lot at all.

Well pensioners have usually paid into the state their whole life, are now too old to work and so they deserve money from the state before most other people.

I think you could give a shit that others are wealthier than you, it oozes from your post.

I object to paying loads of taxes to the state, that others who are young and able enough to work (of which there's a list but not for this thread), then spaff up the wall with their tax free benefits and free housing etc etc blah having paid fck all in.

But pensioners - no we look after our old people, we don't demonise them.

I don’t know about communist, but you do need to incentivise saving, particularly at the margins.

Why would somebody pay small amounts into a private pension now if it’s just going to reduce their eventual state pension?

OPs suggested figure is more than possible. It could be anything up to £415 a week. It a bit rich saying the post is financially illiterate when you then go on give wrong information.

I went searching for what the PM actually said. With thanks the the Manchester Evening News - maybe his plans aren't such a disaster?
“I’ll be honest, we promised in our manifesto to keep the triple lock unchanged throughout this Parliament. I will honour that promise. I will honour that promise and I will do more. That will take the state pension to a record high.
“From there, in April 2030, we will adjust it. The state pension will continue to rise every year at least by prices or 2.5%. And it will hold its value relative to earnings over time so that pensioners will always share in the rising prosperity of the nation.
“But this change will generate significant savings which we will use to build up our National Care Service. Some may not realise it but older people with nothing more than the state pension, or only a little more, can find themselves paying care changes today from that small income. Under my plan, this will no longer happen.”
He added that low-income pensioners would not have to pay income tax during this Parliament.

So doesn't he plan to govern the country for the next 3 years while he waits for this magical GE that he thinks will make him (officially) in charge ?
He conveniently forgot to mention defence spending, stopping the boats and the cost of the benefits bill.
Instead he rearranges the deckchairs on the Titanic, throwing out sops like the reduction in bus fares, no VAT on electric bills and plans for an infinitely nebulous Care Package paid for by picking pensioners pockets'.
"All mouth and no trousers" comes to mind.

Good grief! Calm down dear before you do yourself a mischief.
I had, indeed, forgotten about SERPS and the very, very few people still benefitting from it. Given the age of OP's relative, he might indeed be one of them but, if that's the case, he will have paid even more in contributions to be in that position.

Top 10% earner

See my message at 07:33 where I explained that a top 10% earner would have handed over £326k in employers and employees NI over the last 45 years, which would give an index linked annuity income of £19,364.

Furthermore, if they had invested that money in the ftse 100 each month instead - ie like the Australian super pension model - then they would have £1.38m which would give an index linked annuity income of £81,972

They will also - of course - have contributed far, far more tax during their working life than was spent on them.

£50k earner

If we take that down to a current £50k salary. That would have been £10,040 in 1981 (increasing with inflation for the 45 years to £50k today).

For that salary (increasing with inflation each year) employee contributions would have totalled £85k and employer contributions totalled £81k. The £166k would give an £8.8k annuity. Slightly lower than the full state pension.

But with the money invested in a UK index each year - to reflect the value of giving that money up to 50 years before the pension is taken) - it would come to £874k. That would give a £46k index-linked annuity - almost 4 times more than the state pension.

£50k is actually not far above break-even point for where tax and NI contributions match the amount of state spending per person, including their state pension - even without considering the time-value of the tax contributions.

But we will remove the 2 child cap anyway. Costing approx 3bn a year to the tax paying mugs.

Tell me you're entitled without telling me.

Young people disadvantaged? tell me about it - most have an easy life but want everything for nothing and if they see someone better off than them they want it taken away - jealousy i think it's called.

Old people weren't driving about in new cars every 3 years, they didn't have subscription services but they did have rationing. There was no technology at all - no colour TV's, no phones - no nothing.

My mum is 77 and does not receive 1400 pounds a month in her state pension

Maybe read the thread. Or use Google. The information is easy to find.