'wealthy pensioners urged to give up benefits'

[mirry2]

How wealthy is wealthy?

[dreamingofsun]

merrymouse - on your logic i can give up paying tax then? As we are higher rate tax payers and get very little back. surely OAPs should be no different?

[minderjinx]

I think there would be some sense in reducing/removing benefits to pensioners earning 50K plus in retirement, but I don't know how you can justify means testing on the basis of what people used to earn. If that were the case, nobody who had once had a good job would be eligible for any help if they then became unemployed, or sick for that matter.

[merrymouse]

Clearly you, and most other adults over the age of 18 can vote for an MP who will support legislation to reduce taxes.

[minderjinx]

...and that would be 50K of retirement income each of course, in the case of pensioner couples, if we are following the universally acclaimed CB model . I can't imagine that there are huge numbers of pensioners on that sort of money. It's probably cheaper and easier to ask those to give it to charity than to set up a massively complicated system to work out who they are.

[mirry2]

I agree with minderjinx

[Snog]

I am happy for pensioners to carry on receiving benefits.
This is a distraction from the real issues - as are most arguments about benefits imo.
I'm not happy for huge companies to pay almost no tax whilst driving out of business their competitors who do pay tax.
And I'm not happy for the super rich to contribute so very little or for people to receive obscene bonuses and golden handshakes while their companies do badly. Goes double in the public sector

[ComposHat]

I agree snog but these things aren't an either/or, tax dodging companies, greedy bankers and absurdly wealthy pensioners benefiting from 'perks' (I'm not saying there's a moral equivilence) should all be addressed in the interest of fairness.

[handcream]

My DH and I will have worked 40 years each. There is no way we will have a pension of £100k between us!

We are both higher rate tax payers (so are paying SAMP's contributions) but I dont know anyone who will get £100k in pension between them unless perhaps doctors both working full time in the NHS.

Surely no one on this thread is thinking if for example you earn £70K you will get a £70K pension? Maximum I believe is 2/3rds having done 40 years or so working.

[mirry2]

Yes, handcream, I wonder if some people need educating about pensions.

[merrymouse]

It's a complete can of worms. A particularly wiley pensioner could be claiming winter fuel allowance, child benefit, and, if old enough, married couples allowance AND be spending their winters cruising and still have enough money left over for a stannah stair lift.

[Pleasesleep]

I don't think people are suggesting cutting based on previous salary, but on pension / income. Many old people have a lot of investment income etc as well as a final salary pension. Obviously for those that don't then they would continue to receive benefits. I think 50,000 is a fairly generous figure to cut it off at considering they have no dependants!!


Fwiw I agree in general with what merrymouse was saying re means testing developing an us and them attitude BUT we cannot and should not force the young / families / work force to bear the brunt of the benefits cuts. Especially as there is a lot of evidence that the elderly are at least in part responsible for the cost of housing being so high.
They have also enjoyed pensions and benefits that the people working today cannot hope to achieve.

[Viviennemary]

I think very wealthy pensioners are few and far between. Most people only have a relatively modest private pension if any at all. Modest meaning under £20,000 per year. And a lot don't get anywhere near that.

[mirry2]

Pleasesleep' can you explain how pensioners are partly responsible for the high cost of housing?
You are aware, aren't you, that final salary pensions are on average about £4-6000 a year - so hardly rolling in it. Plus I'd love to know what investments are giving pensionsers such a high return on their savings.

Pensioners get something like £200 a year fuel allowance, a £10 bonus at Christmas and a bus pass - so not a lot.

[2old2beamum]

Have not read all posts but as OAP's we are just above the Pension Credit threshhold. We are in receipt of CTC our 2 youngest get generous CTC and CB. They both get DLA so that puts us financially in a better situation than most OAP's but we work bloody hard.
Back to the point we do not "need" WFA or bus passes (can't get 2 DC's wheelchairs on a bus) But buggered if I will give it back...it goes to the homeless

[ChocolateCakePlease]

Anyone who thinks if you earn 50k whilst working will mean you will get the same in retirement is just plain ignorant. My dh is self employed, has been paying into a private pention for year and is being trually fucked. The return is not viable to actually keep it going, it is that bad he is thinking of buying to let as an alternative for his retirement.

So do not assume before you actually know what you are talking about.

[ChocolateCakePlease]

Paying in for years not a year.

[ChocolateCakePlease]

I blame my phone for spelling

[TartinaTiara]

So, anyone who earns £50k before retiring shouldn't get any benefits? Does this include the state pension? And is that £50k just before retiring, or anyone who's ever earned £50k?

God, the bollocks people talk about pensions, and expect us to take them seriously....

[ChocolateCakePlease]

Tartina I think some people think you will get 50k pension if you earn that before tiring therefore will not need a bus pass or a wfa. Alot of people get screwed in a private pension that is if they can afford to pay into one and I do not know about the public sector but I doubt they will be getting a golden handshake either. The days of a pay off are long gone. People talk bollocks.

[TartinaTiara]

ChocolateCakePlease, I agree - most people under about 45/50 will be relying on the state pension, or on savings. They won't be getting a massive pension from their employer or any private pension. They'll need the state pension to be there, and they'll probably need all the benefits they're now saying should be taken away from current pensioners. Divide and rule. But the thing is, a lot of people over that age won't have a massive private pension either, and the vast majority of current pensioners aren't exactly coining it. Yes, make sure that NI is charged on earnings, even for pensioners and yes, make sure that pensioners have the same tax rates/tax allowances as the rest of the population (tax rates are already the same, tax allowances shortly to become so).

But this debate does seem to have the nasty stink of ageism about it, and frankly, a fair bit of resentment about some posters' own parents/PILs, and the quality of the debate (about who should pay in/who's entitled to take what out of the pot generally, not just in these threads) might well be improved if people would just educate themselves a bit before ranting on.

[mirry2]

I've never known anyone get a pay off in the public sector, apart from the statutory redundancy pay off that everyone in the private and public sector is entitled to, which is currently a weeks wages upto about £400 for every year you've worked there (with a ceiling of about £5000). I haven't got time to check my figures but that gives you a rough idea.

Only people in top positions have a better redundancy pay off.

[Erebus]

My dad was a middle manager in an electronics company, (8am to 5.30pm job).

He retired in 1990 aged 57. He received £70,000 as lump sum and a pension that is still paying my now widowed mum £500 a month.

My mum has only ever done what you might call 'pin money' jobs. She stopped working her last job, 15 hours a week, when she was 60. She's now 80. She, in addition to the above gets full state pension, a SERPS ('top-up') pension they were able and allowed to add to plus £5000 a year from a compulsory government pension dad had to pay into when they were working abroad for the UK government for 8 years in their 20s and 30s. She reckons her pre-tax income is £17,000 a year (and ticks like a 2 bob watch about paying tax!).

She owns the 4 bedroom house she lives in, runs a car and holidays well. In winter we refer to her house as Club Tropicana as it's so hot in there!

I do not begrudge her this, and it all means I don't have to worry about her aged care costs should she prove to be mortal.. but she no more needs a WFA or free bus pass than flying to the moon, by her own admission, but 'it's nice to get something back, isn't it?'....

My chief source of irritation is personal: She really thinks I'm irresponsible in going out to work as I'm 'not thinking of the family'. 'You younger people want it all, these days!' -what, like the ability to pay my gas bill? And help pay for my DC's college fees, come the day? Or cash towards their house deposit? Or the health-care 'gap fee' that I predict is no more than 5 years away?

MY tuppence worth is I would be far more accepting of my wage freeze, loss of CB, increased retirement age, lower pension pay out if we were indeed all in this together, but, as my mother gleefully points out, there's no way Cameron would risk upsetting his well-to-do, MC staunch grey vote by making them feel any pain! Excluding them from the cut-backs is brazenly and purely political.

[Underherthumb]

I think this is truly shocking - legalized theft.

Basically, we are moving towards a taxation system where the more you contribute to the pot the less you receive when you retire. How this is supposed to motivate people or encourage self-reliance is beyond me.

Reminds me of the 'fair share' discussion where everyone carefully avoids justifying or putting numbers to what is fair.

Fully agree that we are staring at a massive black hole in pension funds. However, letting politicians of any persuasion (let's not forget Gordon Browns massive pension pot raid a few years back) manage our retirement money seems guaranteed to annoy around half the contributors.

I'd follow Norway and have an independent sovereign wealth fund where the proceeds service the nations pension payments. Since the board wouldn't be tied to an election cycle their outlook would be longer term. It seems a much better use of QE as well; rather than propping up the banks you invest in infrastructure and property with a long term return (creating jobs in the meantime).

I agree with MrsMarigold and reckon there won't be much to go around when we retire. I'm more worried about what will happen to DD's generation though.