How could we theoretically means test the state pension?

[Lauriefairycake]

There is a generation of pensioners who have benefitted from massive house price increases and who are now living in very expensive properties and have good pensions plus the state pension to fund it.

I generally do not think that it is fair that for example my dh's grandparents (sahm, one really minor civil servant income) had basically an extra £750,000 to downsize and spend on their retirement.

They really do not need the state pension however we have to consider doing something about that means that people may not save for their retirement

and this problem seems particular to the baby boomer generation and it may never happen again

But if one of our goals as a country is to bring down house prices then surely 'forcing' people to sell their properties will gradually bring the prices down?

As nice as it might sound, we simply cannot afford to give everyone free care in their old age. Those that can will have to make a contribution towards it and if that means having to sell their house thne that is what they will have to do. I don't see any other althernative.

As it is, owning a home you can sell affords you a much better standard of care than is available to all those feckless renters who paid the BTL landlord mortgage blew the lot on flash holidays.

I'm not assuming that everyone who rents does so through choice, but 40 -50 years ago, buying a house was a viable option for most people, unlike today. Those people did have a choice, and didn't make the choice to buy knowing that it would be taken away from them in their old age. Unlike the buyers of today.

I know that we can't afford to give evryone care, and that the money has to come from somewhere, so yes, I would be willing to pay more in tax if it meant that my children could inherit my house when DH and I are gone. I do see what you are saying huddspur, and it is a very difficult dilemma. I can completely understand the arguement that if someone can afford to pay for their treatment then they should, but it just keeps strinking me as unfair on people who have saved and gone without other things.

If we can afford to pay for care for people that don't have assets, then we can afford to pay for care for people that do.

Maybe there could be a limit in how much people are allowed to inherit after tax if the person that has left the inhertiance has needed a certain level of care for x amount of years. I don't have all the answers, but the system as it is at the moment provides no incentive at all to save for retirement or buy a house.

I'd rather spend any money I have now, remortgage my property to pay for my childrens university education, and not worry about saving. My family would be better off doing that if DH and I ended up needing care and would still get it if we have no money left.

'and it is a very difficult dilemma. I can completely understand the arguement that if someone can afford to pay for their treatment then they should, but it just keeps strinking me as unfair on people who have saved and gone without other things.'

But you're talking about the house as an inheritance, that's not a savings account. So that implies that anyone who doesn't have a house they own outright is someone who is less deserving.

Which is silly because such people are already at a huge disadvantage when it comes to care in old age - ever seen waiting lists for publicly run care homes?

Plenty of people, an increasing number, who haven't been able to buy a home, do without in life and work hard.

I'm not willing to pay higher taxes so your kids can inherit. I can't think of many who'd pay higher taxes so an increasingly few number of people can inherit their parents' assets.

So yes, your plan to remortgage to finance your children's education is probably a good one.

Laurie - this is a fantastic point you are making, and I wonder why it has been mentioned so little considering all the talk of deficit disasters and 'essential' cuts.

I completely agree that the basic state pension should be means tested. Why should the likes of fred goodwin on his £700,000/yr pension also receive the state pension?! its madness!

As for the idea that means testing pensions will discourage people from saving.. I do not see anyone who aspires to live on the minimum wage or the minimum of anything. This is total nonsense.

You are misreading me expat, or maybe (more likely!) I'm not putting myself across very well.

I'm not saying at all that someone that doesn't own a house outright is less deserving. I'm saying that everyone deserves equally regardless of their wealth. That means the poor as well as the rich.

You wouldn't be paying higher taxes so that my kids can inherit. You would be paying higher taxes to provide for your care in your old age should you need it, as would I.

Why are you more deserving of state help than me because you rent and I manged to get a mortgage? (disclaimer - obviously I have no idea of your personal financial circumstances, I'm just trying to make a point).

''Plenty of people, an increasing number, who haven't been able to buy a home, do without in life and work hard''
Yes, and plenty of people that have been able to buy a home have done without in life in order to buy that home, and have worked hard too. They are equally as deserving of state help.

I agree more that state pensions should be means tested, but I think the threshold should be fairly high so that pensioners that have accrued wealth should be able to spend it as they wish in their old age, but they shouldn't be getting state help if they really don't need it.

The state pension was originally to ensure that people would not be left destitute when they were no longer able to work. Not to ensure fit, healthy and wealthy retirees could take several foreign holidays a year, as is now often the case.

I believe we have a huge problem in that large numbers of young people leave university with almost worthless degrees, debt, no possibility of buying property, no intention of settling down or marrying or whatever. They have no stakes in our country.

It's a large and unstable section of society. If they become discontented it could make for some very uncomfortable times.

At least it will be time-limited. I imagine that within twenty years the large baby boomer population will have shrunk quite a bit and that will ease the housing market problem to a degree.

'As for the idea that means testing pensions will discourage people from saving.. I do not see anyone who aspires to live on the minimum wage or the minimum of anything. This is total nonsense.'

My mum gets a reduced state pension, plus her small civil service pension, and has savings. Because she has savings she cannot get ctb, or pension credit and she does sometimes wonder why she bothered to make provision for her retirement.

If the OAP is to be means tested then can i please have back whatever part of my taxes goes to pay pensions please.

I havent saved and worked hard to lose out why others who didnt bother get supported.

If we means tested the state pension they'd be uproar, people who were excluded from it would rightly be demanding their national insurance back as the Governments have been telling them that it is being used to fund their pension for years.

Devide and conquer all the way.

British politicians sure know how to win power.

Try this.

I was'nt that Sgt Bilko was so clever. It was that his men were so stupid.

//////I havent saved and worked hard to lose out why others who didnt bother get supported.////////

Ille tell you what, let's all live in our own little worlds, in our own little bubbles, while society goes crazy around us.

Then when it comes to the general election, we can all choose by find out "what's in it for us".

Oops sorry, we all did that in the 80's, and now we are all sooooooooooooooooo devided, and mostly conquered, but we dont see it.

We are still asking "what's in it for us" ?

/////I believe we have a huge problem //////

We sure do.

///////Why should the likes of fred goodwin on his £700,000/yr pension also receive the state pension?! its madness!//////

Why not, he has paid for it all well.

Don't means test the state pension.Whenever anything is means tested the better off then have no incentive to support its retention - and it will reduce in value for the less well off.
Instead increase taxation for the well-off, such as those above £100,000 and especially those with millions and even billions.
The government argues that those on high incomes (and even £45000) 'don't need' their Child Benefit. Do those with six figure (or more) salaries need their 40%/50% tax rates? Do they need their Capital Gains Tax allowances? etc.