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.

You get training to have experience to work in customer facing roles. No you don't. If you apply for a similar role in Scotland you need customer facing experience

It does actually.

Contributions based job seekers allowance, new style employment support allowance, maternity allowance.

So contributory benefits. Which means you're ENTITLED to them.

The people who want to whip up rage and hatred are flying the kite of means tested basic pension, or discontinued pension system, to encourage the rubes to get their pitchforks out.

Presumably if they can barely function they’d qualify as disabled?

I’m obviously not going to do that and I am obviously luckier than some. My point is that their situation is representative of a generation that is rolling in stacks of cash simply by virtue of being born at the right time - when things were much easier. My uncle who is 71 and literally moans that he has too much money and he doesn’t know what to do with it!!

He and his wife had relatively normal middle management professional roles so not particularly high earners

Actually, maximum state pension is less than £1000 a month- so I don't know where your relative is living, but it isn't the UK if they are getting £1,400 a month state pension. You are just stirring things up.
Obviously no contributory benefit is means tested- it is a CONTRIBUTORY benefit and is controlled by how much you paid in, and is therefore completely fair.
The fact your relative also had their uni paid for is true of only about 10% of the A level students of the day- it would be paid for but ONLY if you were in the top 10%. 90% of A level students now go to university- paying for that was always impossible , and did not, nor should it, have happened.
The answer to this is very simple tax wealth not work, there is no need to try to make the idea of paying into a pension and then not getting it because you have done well to fly- just tax their overall wealth.

Well, yes but they are still working.

Well I don’t want to point out the obvious but perhaps that means they’ve as equal as chance as everyone else in that case then, all things considered? As if they don’t qualify then by definition they aren’t hindered

Avoidance is entirely legal? How do you propose we force people to pay taxes they don’t legally have to?

I mean, using yourself as an example: how many taxes do you voluntarily pay that you don’t have to?

I’d hazard a guess the answer is: £0

You can qualify for disability benefits but not claim them.

People who get SERPS in addition to the Basic Pension
People who get SERPS in addition to the Basic Pension
People who get SERPS in addition to the Basic Pension
People who get SERPS in addition to the Basic Pension
People who get SERPS in addition to the Basic Pension
People who get SERPS in addition to the Basic Pension

SSSSSS
EEEEEE
RRRRRR
PPPPPP
SSSSSS

As Judge Judy would say "Put your listening ears on".

But that's your experience. My mum is 77 and she's not dirt poor but she's not rich either and she's certainly not entitled. She does not have stacks of cash and she did not have stacks of cash when I was growing up either. She was a single parent who often struggled.

Wait until you're 71 and people dismiss the life you've led.

Of course.

That hasn't changed between the generations. In fact Millennials are far more likely to inherit (and so have to pay the lower percentage of their earnings) than Boomers, whose own parents had lower home ownership.

Nonetheless, for someone who does inherit, the percentage of net income required doesn't change much between generations: 18% in 1995 versus 22% now.

And likewise, for someone who doesn't inherit, the percentage of net income required also doesn't change much between generations: 36% in 1995 versus 44% now.

The point is that it's not very different between generations. It just looks that way because you are comparing a 25 year old with a 60 year old.

The 25 year old is just starting out, and hadn't built up any assets - but is about to enter their productive years.

The 60 year old has been saving for decades and has assets - but is about to start spending that down over the next 30 years when they can't work.

It's a nonsense to say that it's unfair that the 60 year old has more than the 25 year old.

I think you’re beyond the bottom of the rabbit hole

I don't know what you are trying to say to be honest. You think because someone doesn't get disability benefits that they aren't actually disabled and have an equal a chance as everyone else. You're using the word hindered to apply to people who get disability benefits?

Am I? My youngest qualifies. Doesn't claim.

The point is that if someone isn’t on disability benefits (because they don’t qualify) then presumably they have as equal chance as anyone as making good life and financial choices. Refer back to the quote chain for context if you need.

I'm not sure how to say this. I'm disabled. It took me years to get disability benefits. That didn't suddenly make me not disabled. Some people who should get disability benefits get turned down for them

And once again, Millennials and Gen X are forecast to be the richest generations ever.

You just haven't got there yet.

Me neither. I currently get £217.20 a week and I started getting my state pension in 2019. I worked from 17 until 60, so 43 years (was made redundant and was not minded to start looking for another job, who wants a 60 year old PA?). I was told I still would not get the full state pension to account for the years I was 'contracted out' due to paying into the company pension scheme. So they get you all ways.

Parliament could change the law tomorrow and then you wouldn't be entitled to them. The contributory nature of the benefits is a limit on who can claim them, not a guarantee that they will always be available to anyone who has contributed.

I find this very strange. Which generation is providing a lot of free child care, and sometimes caring for older parents too. Which generation is doing voluntary work for charities, providing a large number of magistrates, IMB members and Lay Observers? Which generation provides the whole family of grown up children, arranges great Christmases and helps younger members of the family?
Who volunteers at the food banks? I think you will find most older people are generous spirited and community minded. Would you even think of making derogatory comments about "young people today" trans people, women or LGBTQ+ community? Age is a protected characteristic too. There is too much Ageism on Mumsnet.