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.

Given that OP's relative appears to have been born before 6th April 1951, he will be receiving the old state pension plus SERPS (assuming he did not contract out of SERPS). That would give him a state pension of up to £1,800 per month, substantially more than the new state pension received by current retirees.

Both the old and new state pension go up if you delay retirement. If you delay taking the current state pension for 6 years you will get a pension in excess of £1,400 per month.

OP's relative may well get as much state pension as she claims.

Exactly.

He conveniently forgot to mention defence spending, stopping the boats and the cost of the benefits bill.

Yes. Thank you. I've already been roundly and rudely told off by @BorgQueen for forgetting about SERPS and the few people who will be benefitting from it.

Because one’s pension is not a benefit.

Those people paid into the system all their working lives and now are entitled to collect on it.

The misty eyed speeches and GE in three years, or is it spring, will last for a bit, until the winter energy bills land.

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.”

That is interesting. That sounds to me like the National Care Service will be means-tested.

Ie remove money from all pensioners, and give it to the poorest.

Yet another layer of redistribution.

It's consistent with Labour/socialist beliefs, I guess.

Just don't ask what happens when other people's money runs out...

If you paid in, you should get the pension. That's the social deal under which you lived.

It's easy to find out how someone might have £415 per week. They would have been born before 1951, so let's be honest, numbers will be reducing:

• Basic State Pension: The standard full basic State Pension for those who reached pension age before April 6, 2016, is £184.90 per week. 1]
• Additional Pension (AP): Older state pensioners (born before 1951) who built up maximum earnings-related additional state pension components (such as State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme or S2P) can add substantial extra amounts. 1, 2]
• Combined Maximum: Maxing out both the basic state pension and the maximum Additional Pension can bring total weekly payments up to approximately £415.44 per week. 1]

Lid Dems already responded that they oppose it and want to keep TL.

They key item to watch now is 28/10 budget.

TL will not be even remotely enough to pay for Social Care plan
Will reforming the triple lock pay for social care reform? - BBC News

So it's unlikely to be a removal of one component of triple lock, but something much more substantial to reduce pensions.

And to pay for the rest of the sweeties AB promised taxes must rise substantially. Realistically this budget should be the last one for tax rises - AB won't wait till 2029, he will call election earlier, so let's see.

Nobody paid 15% mortgages for years on end though did they? It was a mattter of months, if that. And house price to salary ratio was much lower then so mortgages were a lower part of your living costs.

Yes I had indeed forgotten that SERPS ever existed. Been torn off a shred by @BorgQueen already.

What part of “he’s paying the equivalant of TWO State Pensions in TAX every single year, do people not understand?
He’s a Net CONTRIBUTOR to the tax coffers and probably has been all his working life.
The vast majority of people don’t pay enough Tax and NI to cover what they take out of the system, nowhere near enough in fact - that’s another hard conversation that Govt needs to have.
Half a million pensioners get at least £5000 in extra state pension a year via SERPS, why do I have to keep repeating myself?
A PP who is 71 was adamant that higher state pensions don’t exist, how the hell can you be 71 and not know about SERPS?
I’m 60 and know about it.

and if you didn't?

That's the problem with UK social contract - people who didn't pay in, possibly their entire lives, still get the same or more. and it's even worse with working age welfare

The tax adjustments have already been put in place really. Since 2018 auto pension enrolment has been mandatory for all paye employees. You can see whats coming - those with healthy pension savings won't get a state pension.
With government debt approaching 3 trillion and increasing fast, social care costs escalating and the cost of debt back to more normal rates - it might not be that far in the future unfortunately. I agree with you that a tapered approach would be the fairest way but its anybodies guess where and when they will draw the lines.

I just didn’t see the issue with Theresa mays plan for insurance for care in later life. You pay a set amount in (was it £72k?) and the government will guarantee to pay your care costs in later life. It seemed those that were against this would rather gamble that they wouldn’t need care and keep the cash instead.

It was years. Second graph.

https://topforeignstocks.com/2017/11/06/uk-interest-rates-from-1694-to-2014-chart/

Some people do. Some get even more.

It is a contributory benefit. Entitlement depends on years of contributions, not amount paid in, and there is no contractual entitlement to receive a set pension.

Compare this to a defined benefit pension scheme where entitlement is linked to salary.

I have to agree - that was a short blip based on much lower income to borrowing ratios.

And a lot of people on UC wouldn't be on UC at all if they were in social housing. High private sector rents raise the threshold at which UC entitlement ends.

Rationing in the uk finished in 56… anyone who is older than 72 including your parents will have had rationing.

Exactly. In the UK those that paid in get the same as those that didn’t. In Europe benefits that you get out from the state are far more reflective of what you have paid in. A much fairer system that incentivises people to work. Our system incentivises people to shirk.

What age?

You are wrong. Firstly the figures you have just put up add up to more than £1000 a month and secondly we are not talking about the new state pension.

So I wont get a pension until 67. So by your 30 year estimate I will still be going strong at 97 sponging off the stae just for existing. Vanishingly unlikely.