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.

Not every pensioner is utterly selfish though. Not every pensioner is out to get what they can personally from the state and sod anyone else. My parents appreciate that the jobs and housing markets are far tougher than they ever were when they were working and don’t want their grandchildren lumbered with vast amounts of debt. The triple lock has to go. Conscientious pensioners realise that asking the young to fund ever more generous benefits when those young haven’t a hope of seeing those benefits when they retire simply isn’t fair. These pensioners vote with their conscience, not their grabby, outstretched hands. Pensioners are after all
tge demographic with the most disposable income in the UK.

My mum is 77 and her state pension and personal pension combined is just over 25k a year.

NHS on its knees. Bit of a sweeping statement there

But, it IS a benefit, a contributory benefit and stems from The National Insurance Act 1946.

Mine is 880.72 every 4 weeks. I receive an additional £9.24 every four weeks since my husband died in June.

No they aren't. What an absurd thing to say

About 21% of working age population in UK are economically inactive.

Think about it - 1 in 5 adults don't contribute to economy. They can't all be so disabled they can't do any work at all.

Only 30% of benefits recipients' are in any form of employment. Any means even a couple of hours a week.

It's rare for a person to get 434 quid a month of UC only, they would need to live at home with their family. Normally this would be accompanied by housing support, council tax reduction, free prescriptions etc.

So yes, a lot of "shirkers" and a lot of people working cash in hand and claiming at the same time.

ETA: as to high life - a lot of people aren't aiming for high life, they certainly want it and feel resentful to those who live such lives, but their main drive is to do as little as possible and benefits give them life which is good enough without being bothered.

You sound nice. Do you dislike your parents and grandparents or just unrelated old folks?

Simply economic fact. Sorry but true.

And just for context (to show that it's equivalent to a rather miserly Australian super) the combined employee and employer National Insurance (NI) contribution is £7,223.37 on a median full-time salary and £12,718.60 on the top 10% salary.

That's in addition to income tax.

I'll be getting shit loads less compared to what I've paid into the system, so no, they should not be means tested at all.

I'll be poorer in retirement than I am now. Not all peoples financial circumstances are the same just because of age

Nope.

The Statista UK Income Data shows that the 55 to 65 age group has the highest mean disposable income, while the 25 to 34 age group has the highest median disposable income (ie has the highest middle point of their income range).

Did your relative work hard to accumulate his wealth. I doubt it was handed to him on a plate. You sound very bitter. He will still be paying tax on his income. Maybe,if you are fortunate to get to a pensionable age, you will think differently.

You can simply not claim the state pension, I’d agree multimillionaires don’t need it, that’s something people like Alan Sugar and others say quite often, alternatively they can donate it to charity, no one makes them pocket it every month. Personally not overly concerned about removing the triple lock, after all , it didn’t exist 15 years ago, but as to it funding a social care scheme that’s free to all, it simply won’t and , while nothing has been said as to how such a scheme will work, it was interesting that the comment that no one who is only on state pension will pay for social care was made , which sort of implies everyone else still will to some degree

There are plenty of people who could be working but aren’t. That requires jobs too of course.

> who receives £1,400 from the state pension each month

You're a liar

You're still a liar

Most people are. The pp's assertion doesn't pass the sniff test.

What younger people can't seem to get their heads around is that people spend their whole working life accumulating assets... in order to live off that money during a 30 year retirement when they can no longer work.

It's a bit nuts to believe that a 25 year old who has only been working a few years should have the same assets as a 55 year old who has been saving, building and investing for 30+ years...

Generation Z and Millennials are both forecast to become the wealthiest generations in history. You just need to work and build for a few more decades first.

Maybe get a full-time job, live frugally and save. Then, you won't feel so envious of others.

A top earner could get £1400 stare pension a month under the old serps pension. You basically got a basic pension that is much less than the current state pension, and then top ups depending on what you earned and for how many years.
However any top earner with any financial house would have contracted out of serps and had a private pension. This made much more financial sense for higher rate pax payers.

That wrong doesn’t make denying it to others right.

We imported 1.6m low skilled immigrants in Boriswave alone, then another few mn over the last five years.
Why Brits aren't filling these jobs?

As to "pensioners don't need it" or "families need it" - are we in communism now?
As far as I remember a couple of attempts of communist states ended up very very badly.

I must have imagined running a home on 396 pounds a month UC a couple of years ago then. If someone claims UC and lives at home with family they don't qualify for housing element. Council tax wouldn't be paid by the person living at home if they weren't the householder. Being on UC doesn't automatically qualify someone for free prescriptions if they are in England. Its means tested

Lots of people working cash in hand. I never have.

That's hilarious that you think everyone on UC just wants to sit around on a pittance a month doing nothing

You don't know what my "main drive " is. Or anyone else who is on UC.

He doesn't need state pension but equally you don't need child benefit if you're earning that much.

£241 x 52 = £12532 divided by 12 = £1044 per month.