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.

OP, if you think ending the triple lock will also end student debt, means-tested Child Benefit, and twenty-somethings not being able to get on the property ladder, think again.
Burnham needs cash to beef up the military and to fund his vanity projects.

As I said, months, not years.

Entitlement is linked to number of years paid up, with the amount paid out as pension being a flat amount per number of years paid in.

Interestingly, contributions were also originally a flat amount, not linked to earnings.

So everyone who worked paid the same amount in, and was entitled to the same amount out.

Our country goes ever further in redistribution though, so the pay-out remained flat, but contributions became linked to income... initially with a cap on contributions, and then even that cap disappeared.

And now people even want to means-test it, so that the amount you get out will be the inverse of what you paid in

How is it worse with working age welfare. Its always been the case that people were entitled to unemployment benefits whether they paid in or not. A single person on UC gets 434 a month if they are over 25

Its a choice to have children.

If they means test it then many working class people will get hit the most compared to a few millionaires. The only people who benefit are those on benefits with low savings. Which seems very unfair as we’re the ones paying into it!

Yes, re some kind of insurance.
Only 1/4 need any form of care in later life so you would think there would be insurance products, which I believe they do have in the U.S.
The only thing we have currently is being able to swap a personal pension for an immediate needs care Annuity, which means you need a decent amount in a pension to start with and no dependent Spouse.

You can buy life and critical illness cover so why not care cover? £500k of cover would do most people.

I take home just over £3k in London. I'm divorced, so single-income household. Two teenagers, both want to go to university. 50/50 with XH, so no maintenance. But he says he won't be able to contribute to uni (which is interesting, because he was earning more than I am now when we split and I'm doing everything I can to budget for it).

I am very grateful for Child Benefit.

The New State Pension is around £241, but that’s only for those who retired post April 2016. I’m amazed so many people are unaware that older pensioners get a lot less basic SP than that, around £190. Many made extra contributions, such as something called SERPS which boosted their SP to the figures quoted by PP.

DH just gets the old basic SP. My SP is around £110. Lots of women like me, gave up work when DC came along, no NI credits, then paid reduced rate on low earnings, which didn’t contribute to the SP. I made up for it by joining a company scheme, but that just lifts us slightly over PC levels.

On a personal level...yes of course. As a society, we are screwed if people stop having children. The idea that 3k is a lot if you're a family is nonsense. Rent on a modest home and childcare costs could wipe the lot out. It shouldn't be a case in society that a couple with average paying jobs can't afford a family.

What does that have to do with anything? OP is talking about her relatives circumstances.

Because it could perhaps have been made clear that this isn't the figure many people get on retirement

Its hardly a few people. There are over 2 million getting SERPs from the inherited benefit alone, never mind the people still getting it in their own right.

I honestly don't understand what the triple lock means. I don't earn much.

I've got a workplace pension and I've set up a separate private pension too as I did a bit of freelancing a few years ago on top of my normal job.

Before my Grandma died she thought it was mad to receive all the help with heating costs that they had because although her and my Grandad had grown up in poverty, they'd been very frugal savers and invested sensible and worked in normal jobs for decent pay and pensions so they were secure (not wealthy) in their older age. She very clearly saw that she didn't need the help in her 80s and 90s that she'd really needed in her 20s and 30s, or that young working families needed who she knew through church.

It's not unreasonable to wonder why this millionaire you know receives over a grand a month when there are many areas of government spending which are struggling.

Sadly though, these are the systems we're in. Your mention of student debt is an interesting one too - the goal posts kept moving. I just made it through Uni before the changes in the 2000s but my children have made choices with the knowledge that a £30k+ debt isn't an appealing way to start their working lives and that there are alternative routes to success.

I agree - insurance to share the risk is the only sensible way forward.

That's what most of Europe does!

The government could support it by allowing insurance contributions to come out of pre-tax income - like pension contributions do. In return, insurance companies could be required to make the insurance premiums universal (ie not depend on current health) and cover whatever we deem to be minimum cover.

The way we have it now is absolutely the worst of all worlds. There's no government-regulated insurance... and worse, state-paid care home fees are hugely subsidised by self-funders. Self-funders pay about 50% more than the state for the same room.

So the cost of caring for people who don't have enough money themselves is currently largely borne by the small number of people who are themselves unlucky enough to need care, and are paying for it themselves. Not by the general taxpayer.

It's the exact opposite of socialising the risk.

Given that it closed 24 years ago it’s going to be a thing of the past pretty rapidly. The Treasury was grateful for the contributions when they were made.

Then you will be too when you're older.

Presumably the age at which you can receive the state pension.

What about those of us who are retired and still pay tax?

Which is basically everyone with a private pension.

Let us imagine a scenario in which OP's dastardly boomer relative did not spend his pension filthy rotten lucre on himself but rather DONATED it to her each month.

What are the chances she'd be on here complaining about the evils of the state pension for rich types and how it should be means-tested?

Theresa May proposed this and there was an outcry against it. People don't want to pay money for anything, they just want everything for free.

But many do.

Getting benefits isn't a pathway to getting "free housing ". Most of the people I know on UC are in private rented accommodation as they can't get social housing. If you think someone running their own home on 434 quid a month spaffs that up the wall then I really don't know what to say.

All choices you've made but you expect state support too