Britain's pensioners are the poorest in Europe.

[ivanahoe]

Millions of elderly people in Britain are having to choose between eating and heating their homes because the UK's State pension is so low, and what's more the media are sweeping this issue under the carpet.

The basic state pension for single pensioners is just £97. 25 a week, and this is following a 30, 40, and 50 year working life contributing to the system both taxes and NI contribution which were mandatory

The State pension used to increase with British male average earnings, or inflation whichever the higher to protect its value prior to 1979, but when Thatcher took office in 1979, she broke to state pensions link with male average earnings, and the state pension has decreased in value ever since, being linked to inflation, and New Labour have continued Thatcher's pension policy.

Because we British are not generally politically motivated until things happen to ourselves, I wonder how many on this site know about the very serious plight of pensioners in this country ?

'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is what we should be striving for, and that needs to be means tested. Why should RIchard Branson and Sir Fred Goodwin receive the same level of public support as a pensioner who has spent their entire life caring for disabled offspring, for example.'

Well put, stressed! I couldn't agree more!

I happen to think the EU is a good thing.

I feel we have a moral obligation to support those in developing nations, without whose labour force we'd be even more screwed, and particularly former British colonies who, thanks to past British foreign policies are now FUBAR.

Means testing may sound like a good idea, but it is incredibly expensive. Universal benefits are far cheaper and more effective.

If you means test, you end up spending huge amounts of money on admin. Money that could have gone to those in need. You also deter a lot of people who would qualify from applying, not least because the forms are complex.

ivanahoe does this mean you would want the current way of partitioning tax revenues to be changed? i.e cut the amount of money in the defense budget and shift the savings to fund the increase in pensions?

i am trying to find out out how you would fund this increase, please could you just say rather than respond with a rhetorical question.

also, would you want to see people in receipt of other benefits see similar increases? if not, why not?

'Universal benefits are far cheaper and more effective.'

Not if you're wanting big increases like ivanhoe suggests.

Tax Credits are means-tested. Yes, it's expensive, yes, there are errors. But those errors are on the decrease since the inception of tax credits.

There comes a point when it is not far cheaper to hand out tens of thousands of pounds/person to an ever-increasing amount of the population.

NI was never meant to fully support a larger and larger amount of the population for decades at an ever-increasing standard.

Means testing is a waste of time and money. It is far cheaper just to pay the pension, honestly. Means testing makes intuitive sense, but when you look at it carefully, it just doesn't stack up.

Paying pensioners a living income would save money, too, by reducing avoidable ill-health, keeping people active and contributing to society for far longer.

So why aren't all benefits universal then, if means-testing is so expensive and complicated?

Why are some of us subjected to means-testing and others not, just because they're old.

Everyone who works pays into the system, too.

I don't see why some are exempt and we're supposed to keep paying more and more for more of them just because of their age.

Some people who are very vulnerable would love a 'living income', too, but that's not a reality for them and they are means-tested all the time.

Means testing is a devisery policy, that's why it is used. It is also meant to humiliate and degrade recipients.

/////Means testing may sound like a good idea, but it is incredibly expensive. Universal benefits are far cheaper and more effective.

If you means test, you end up spending huge amounts of money on admin. Money that could have gone to those in need. You also deter a lot of people who would qualify from applying, not least because the forms are complex////

SPOT ON.

'It is also meant to humiliate and degrade recipients.'

No it isn't. It's meant for them to prove they have need of the monies and qualify for them.

You want to get income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, Income Support, LHA/CBT, even DLA (which is not means-tested) you still have to prove you have need of it. And many who need DLA are very vulnerable, very disabled.

It's all paid from NI, too.

But someone pension should be exempt and keep going up and up?

You could get rid of all these other things you don't want our government paid for and you still have loads of debt to deal with from the bailout alone.

Yet we're all supposed to keep stumping up more and more for pensions to those who may not need it?

No wonder it's all becoming such a mess and Britain is in ever more debt.

'Retirement' was never meant to last 30 odd years with the government paying all your living expenses and healthcare.

There is no society that is ever going to be able to afford such a thing for any significant number of people.

And that's where we're headed.

The state pension is not means tested and AFAIK never has been. It is a universal benefit in the sense that it is available to everyone of the right age. However, it is also a contributory benefit - you only get the full pension if you have paid the right NI contributions. To introduce means testing for a universal benefit would be plain daft. A waste of time and effort and damaging those who need the most help.

Then how are we going to afford to keep paying out, for more and more people, for longer and longer, considering the amount of debt we're in?

And like it or lump it, the EU and the UK's participation in it are not going to stop.

It's not the basic state pension that people say needs means testing, it is the top up pension credits that the poorest pensioner receive.

The state pension is a universal benefit, and should stay that way, BUT it was never meant to solely fund a good standard of living for perhaps 20 or 25 years. The extra income MUST be means tested so that it is targeted to those who need it. It is unrealistic in the extreme to expect the state to fund all pensioner to the tune of several hundred pounds a week, whether they need it or not. Means testing is not designed to humiliate nor degrade, nor is it designed as some sort of social stigma. It is designed so thet what are, ultimately, limited funds are divided up fairly.Almost every other benefit is means tested and even those that aren't have strict criteria to be met. WHy should people become immune to these things just because they reach a certain age?

Perhaps we should just do away with means testing all together and give anyone who fancies applying full tax credits, for example, or perhaps just pick a figure out the air that we apply to all families regardless of income or need? Perhaps we should double or triple IS or JSA or whatever and then not expect people to have to meet any income criteria for those either? I think not. The same applies for extra pension.

The means testing of pensioners is costing over 15 times more of tax payers money than it would cost to uprate the state pension universially.

The state pension is not a universial "benefit".

The state pension is a "right", and paid to all uk pensioners because they have already paid for it.

P.S. I am not a pensioner.

Very true, Ivanhoe, it isn't a benefit at all.

The problem with the basic state pension (as opposed to SERPS) is that we don't pay for it. People paying taxes fund people drawing state pensions and hope that in future somebody else will fund their pensions, and mine. Anywhere else this would be called a ponzi scheme and shut down

edam, No, its a living wage that has been paid for by todays pensioners through their working years of NI contributions.

And increases should be paid directly as British prosperity increases, or inflation , whichever the higher.

Having this countries elderly people being forced to live on a below par state pension, and means tested handouts if they cannot live on the state pension is abhorrant to me.

RedbinDippers, What about all those years of N.I. Contributions paid by today's pensioners when they were working, dont they count at all in your thinking ?

Problem is, while people have indeed paid NI throughout their working lives, the way taxation works is that today's taxes pay for today's spending. So yes, although as individuals we pay in throughout our lives, that money isn't held in a pot waiting for us - the people paying NI 20 years ago were funding pensioners 20 years ago. Today's pensioners are funded by today's taxpayers.

It's abhorrent to you, but to others it makes sense to means-test if you need top ups beyond the state pension as the number of people drawing it increases and the number of people drawing it for longer than a decade increases as well.

Ivanahoe, It's nothing to do with my thinking. it is a simple fact that your and NI contributions fund other people, there is no pension pot with your name on it.

Edam: NB my avoidance of the apostraphe.

And another thing: My NI contributions ought to purchase NHS dental care, like that's ever going to happen!

RedbinDippers, Looking after our pensioners, and giving them a dignified state pension income, is not an economic question, it is a moral question.

RedbinDippers, When Thatcher began rolling back the "role of the state" in the 80's, she included state pension provision, social care, community care, NHS care, and post offices.

New Labour have continued where she left off
because since the 80's your taxes and contributions will continue to be used as the charity for the world, and less and less for our own vital services.

ivanahoe: I think we are actually on the same side. I am not arguing against state pension provision. My point is that both parties have failed to provide adequate funding.