Which of the major political parties

Frank the tank

Will be the first (in the intrest of the ecconomy and of fairness) to have the bollox to cut certain benefits to certain PENSIONERS?

lucan

I'd be surprised if anyone knows the answer to that question, but then again, lack of knowledge never seems to stop people on this forum giving us the benefit of their 'wisdom'.

team47b

Cool, thanks Lucan...remind me again who's on the left and who is on the right

daviesee

Labour.
The Tories won't upset their voters.
Liberals will not be in power for the foreseeable future. The current coalition is as close as they will get and they have ruined future opportunities with it IMHO.

Means tested pension. If your family income is more than @ £50,000 (reasonable figure to be determined) you don't get a state pension.
Seems fair to me.

ballysmate

daviesee wrote:

Labour.
The Tories won't upset their voters.
Liberals will not be in power for the foreseeable future. The current coalition is as close as they will get and they have ruined future opportunities with it IMHO.

Means tested pension. If your family income is more than @ £50,000 (reasonable figure to be determined) you don't get a state pension.
Seems fair to me.

This would be another measure to encourage people coming up to pensionable age to blow some of their savings so that they aren't penalised. I am thinking also of the elderly who have to sell their houses etc to fund care in their twilight years, whilst those being less frugal during their younger years get it paid by the state.

Mikey23

Hands off us pensioners ...

daviesee

Ballysmate wrote:

This would be another measure to encourage people coming up to pensionable age to blow some of their savings so that they aren't penalised. I am thinking also of the elderly who have to sell their houses etc to fund care in their twilight years, whilst those being less frugal during their younger years get it paid by the state.

A pension of £50,000 = a pension pot of £1,000,000 approx. Plus house, investments and other assets.
What percentage of the population would that affect?
Funding care will already happen anyway.
Being less frugal and being paid for in retirement years already happens anyway.

ballysmate

daviesee wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

This would be another measure to encourage people coming up to pensionable age to blow some of their savings so that they aren't penalised. I am thinking also of the elderly who have to sell their houses etc to fund care in their twilight years, whilst those being less frugal during their younger years get it paid by the state.

A pension of £50,000 = a pension pot of £1,000,000 approx. Plus house, investments and other assets.
What percentage of the population would that affect?
Funding care will already happen anyway.
Being less frugal and being paid for in retirement years already happens anyway.

You imply that the number of people affected would be low. Not knowing much about pension pots, I readily concede this point.
Therefore your scheme would save a miniscule amount of the welfare budget and would therefore appear to be a policy of spite and envy.

daviesee

Ballysmate wrote:

You imply that the number of people affected would be low. Not knowing much about pension pots, I readily concede this point.
Therefore your scheme would save a miniscule amount of the welfare budget and would therefore appear to be a policy of spite and envy.

So it would only affect a small minority who wouldn't even notice it and it would give the appearance of "everybody in it together" to appease the masses.
Why not?

ooermissus

It's going the other way. Pensions have already been pushed up, while non-means tested benefits (winter fuel allowance, free bus travel etc) have been protected from the cuts. There are now fewer poor pensioners than poor working-age adults or kids.

From 2016, the government is planning to give all pensioners a higher flat rate pension, without means testing. Plus old people are getting more help to keep their houses while the state provides them with nursing care.

It's a good time to be old and will be for another ten years or so when the last of the baby boomers will have retired. Then the cuts in old-age benefits will begin, although I wouldn't be surprised to see tax benefits for contributing to a pension fund reduced well before then.

More young people would have to vote - and as a coherent bloc - to stop any of this from happening. Do need to find them jobs though, so they can foot the bill.

ballysmate

daviesee wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

You imply that the number of people affected would be low. Not knowing much about pension pots, I readily concede this point.
Therefore your scheme would save a miniscule amount of the welfare budget and would therefore appear to be a policy of spite and envy.

So it would only affect a small minority who wouldn't even notice it and it would give the appearance of "everybody in it together" to appease the masses.
Why not?

I refer the Rt Hon Gentleman to my previous answer.

daviesee

Ballysmate wrote:

I refer the Rt Hon Gentleman to my previous answer.

Benefits get cut at a certain income, quite rightly so. As should the pension. It's not about envy, it is about need. Some need it, some do not.
If your pension pays £50,000 per annum would you really miss £1680?
Ah, go on, make it £100,000 to make the question easier.

ballysmate

daviesee wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

I refer the Rt Hon Gentleman to my previous answer.

Benefits get cut at a certain income, quite rightly so. As should the pension. It's not about envy, it is about need. Some need it, some do not.
If your pension pays £50,000 per annum would you really miss £1680?
Ah, go on, make it £100,000 to make the question easier.

When someone reaches working age they start to pay NI contributions, understanding that they will count towards their state pension. Why should the state welch on the deal.
If it is purely about need, should my mother lose her OAP entitlement if she gets 6 numbers on the lottery tonight?
If need is the only criterion, surely all benefits should be means tested.

daviesee

Ballysmate wrote:

If need is the only criterion, surely all benefits should be means tested.

Finally we agree.

lemon63

Means tested pension. If your family income is more than @ £50,000 (reasonable figure to be determined) you don't get a state pension.
Seems fair to me.

?? If I'm a pensioner and have paid national insurance all my working life then I'm entitled to a state pension regardless of what other pension income I may have.

ballysmate

Not quite. I don't regard a pension as a benefit.

This was in response to Daviesee not the post above

daviesee

lemon63 wrote:

Means tested pension. If your family income is more than @ £50,000 (reasonable figure to be determined) you don't get a state pension.
Seems fair to me.

?? If I'm a pensioner and have paid national insurance all my working life then I'm entitled to a state pension regardless of what other pension income I may have.

Equally, you could go through life to 60 paying N.I. without going to hospital and die suddenly. Going to complain you didn't get your return? National Insurance is an insurance not a return on investment.
I am guessing that you don't have to worry about it anyway.

ballysmate

daviesee wrote:

lemon63 wrote:

Means tested pension. If your family income is more than @ £50,000 (reasonable figure to be determined) you don't get a state pension.
Seems fair to me.

?? If I'm a pensioner and have paid national insurance all my working life then I'm entitled to a state pension regardless of what other pension income I may have.

Equally, you could go through life to 60 paying N.I. without going to hospital and die suddenly. Going to complain you didn't get your return? National Insurance is an insurance not a return on investment.
I am guessing that you don't have to worry about it anyway.

That was lemon63's deal. He would pay NI and in return the Government of the day would take care of him when he was sick and he would be entitled to draw a pension when he reached pensionable age. Simples

daviesee

Ballysmate wrote:

That was lemon63's deal. He would pay NI and in return the Government of the day would take care of him when he was sick and he would be entitled to draw a pension when he reached pensionable age. Simples

I see that you have not noticed that the rules are subject to change. Retirement age for example.
Anyway, I have tried to make my point and am out of here in the hope of getting on the bike in the morning.

ballysmate

daviesee wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

That was lemon63's deal. He would pay NI and in return the Government of the day would take care of him when he was sick and he would be entitled to draw a pension when he reached pensionable age. Simples

I see that you have not noticed that the rules are subject to change. Retirement age for example.
Anyway, I have tried to make my point and am out of here in the hope of getting on the bike in the morning.

Enjoy the ride.

Wirral_paul

daviesee wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

If need is the only criterion, surely all benefits should be means tested.

Finally we agree.

Great idea - so those who pay the least in NI contributions get the most benefit from them. Pure genius.

Seems crazy to me that in this country, we are now supposedly being encouraged to work harder and save for our own retirement.... but then so many are so quick to call for state pensions to be scrapped via means testing for those who save the most for their retirement to level it up a bit. Whatever happened to the assumption that if you work hard then you deserve more? I'd be quite happy to see any professional dole-ite who never work a day left on the current JSA rate of £71 or whatever it is now

Anyway, I'm now doing all i can to pay the bare minimum of NI and tax - and will make voluntary NI contributions in order to reach the minimum requirements for the state pension based on the rules applying (currently the 30 year rule). Sick of subsidising the slackers of this country myself

confused@BR

The British Pension arrangement is one of the meanest in Europe and fairly easy for a Government to afford. We may be living longer but the following generations have health issues which are already impacting on that statistic. The proposed pension arrangement is not as generous as may be assumed, the date for implementation is some way off and inflation is eroding the stated sum at some speed.

The O P is right to draw attention to the fear of pensioners displayed by this and other Governments, we vote often and lobby loudly. Sadly, the Treasury, which really runs this Country, is as stingy and mean-spirited as it ever was. So there you have a perfect example of another 'out group' (like cyclists) to bear the mindless ire of the general public without any examination of what the spending priorities of any Government should be.

In short, we're stuffed.

daviesee

Ballysmate wrote:

Enjoy the ride.

Thanks but due to a zero degree temperature and gale force gusts, I am wimping out. :oops:

PS:- Well played Frank. Well played.

finchy

Frank - would I be right in assuming that you had one particular pensioner in mind when you made this post?

ballysmate

Wirral_Paul wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

If need is the only criterion, surely all benefits should be means tested.

Finally we agree.

Great idea - so those who pay the least in NI contributions get the most benefit from them. Pure genius.

Seems crazy to me that in this country, we are now supposedly being encouraged to work harder and save for our own retirement.... but then so many are so quick to call for state pensions to be scrapped via means testing for those who save the most for their retirement to level it up a bit. Whatever happened to the assumption that if you work hard then you deserve more? I'd be quite happy to see any professional dole-ite who never work a day left on the current JSA rate of £71 or whatever it is now

Anyway, I'm now doing all i can to pay the bare minimum of NI and tax - and will make voluntary NI contributions in order to reach the minimum requirements for the state pension based on the rules applying (currently the 30 year rule). Sick of subsidising the slackers of this country myself

I agree with most of what you wrote but if you read my posts you will see that I regard State Pension as an absolute entitlement and not a benefit. I agree that benefits should be means tested.
As regards NI contributions, dependent on your present age, you may find that you may need 35 years in future.

BelgianBeerGeek

Why would anyone think the state pension is an entitlement?

BillyMansell

Ballysmate wrote:

Wirral_Paul wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

If need is the only criterion, surely all benefits should be means tested.

Finally we agree.

Great idea - so those who pay the least in NI contributions get the most benefit from them. Pure genius.

Seems crazy to me that in this country, we are now supposedly being encouraged to work harder and save for our own retirement.... but then so many are so quick to call for state pensions to be scrapped via means testing for those who save the most for their retirement to level it up a bit. Whatever happened to the assumption that if you work hard then you deserve more? I'd be quite happy to see any professional dole-ite who never work a day left on the current JSA rate of £71 or whatever it is now

Anyway, I'm now doing all i can to pay the bare minimum of NI and tax - and will make voluntary NI contributions in order to reach the minimum requirements for the state pension based on the rules applying (currently the 30 year rule). Sick of subsidising the slackers of this country myself

I agree with most of what you wrote but if you read my posts you will see that I regard State Pension as an absolute entitlement and not a benefit. I agree that benefits should be means tested.
As regards NI contributions, dependent on your present age, you may find that you may need 35 years in future.

You can't state all benefits should be means tested and then decide to exclude benefits of your choosing. We could all do that and just end up in a circular argument where we are all acting out of self-interest and getting no where.

NI contributions should not lead to a sense of entitlement but be recognised as an insurance against people falling into penury due to circumstance, illness or age, and just as with car, home or contents insurance if you've no justifiable reason to claim you don't get anything.

The combination of means testing and a resource allocation system should apply to all benefits and would weed out rich pensioners misspending their universal entitlements just as it would the small percentage of working age adults milking the system.

Wirral_paul

Ballysmate wrote:

I agree with most of what you wrote but if you read my posts you will see that I regard State Pension as an absolute entitlement and not a benefit. I agree that benefits should be means tested.
As regards NI contributions, dependent on your present age, you may find that you may need 35 years in future.

Yes correct (as the proposed rule changes are at present), from 2017 it will require 35 years NI contributions to qualify for the full flat rate pension. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by an Absolute entitlement however - you mean for the full flat rate pension regardless of how much NI you pay over the years, or an absolute retirement regardless of how much your income is from private / occupational pensions?

Personally i think that regardless of other pension income, if you paid into NI then you have an absolute entitlement to the state pension. If you have never paid a penny in NI through your working life (and importantly are fit for work) - then you have an absolute entitlement to sweet F.A. The first line of my previous post was full of sarcasm.

Frank the tank

johnfinch wrote:

Frank - would I be right in assuming that you had one particular pensioner in mind when you made this post?

No is the concise answer to that.

I just thought it was worth discussing as pensions and assocciated benefit account for 11/20ths of the total benefits bill.

I've got nowt against pensioners (hopefully I'll be one myself one day ) but the issue can't be avoided. Taking the state pension out of the equasion there are a lot of pensioners who are not in need of things like the winter weather payment and the christmas bonus. A large percentage are in need of it though.

As someone else alluded to the young of this nation who aren't even getting a chance to amass any kind of wealth for their future are having benefits cut NOW. Cameron has promised tax relief on child care to couples earning up to £300,000K/annum as a pre-election bribe.

What made me make my OP was the level of pensioner benefits and the fact the "Grey vote" is a sizeable one and one more mobilized than the younger vote. Understandable in my view, as the younger generation are being made to feel they have no real stake in society and a lot feel alienated by the political system and possibly believe whoever gets in they don't give a f**k about me.

I believe the main three political parties are indeed running scared of the grey vote.

ballysmate

Wirral_Paul wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

I agree with most of what you wrote but if you read my posts you will see that I regard State Pension as an absolute entitlement and not a benefit. I agree that benefits should be means tested.
As regards NI contributions, dependent on your present age, you may find that you may need 35 years in future.

Yes correct (as the proposed rule changes are at present), from 2017 it will require 35 years NI contributions to qualify for the full flat rate pension. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by an Absolute entitlement however - you mean for the full flat rate pension regardless of how much NI you pay over the years, or an absolute retirement regardless of how much your income is from private / occupational pensions?

Personally i think that regardless of other pension income, if you paid into NI then you have an absolute entitlement to the state pension. If you have never paid a penny in NI through your working life (and importantly are fit for work) - then you have an absolute entitlement to sweet F.A. The first line of my previous post was full of sarcasm.

I mean that you are entitled to a pension but directly proportional to the amount of contributions that you make.
ie If you make a full contribution over your working life, you get the full state pension. 50% contribution is halk pension.
Absolute entitlement means that you continue to draw the pension you have accrued, regardless of whether you get 6 numbers in Saturday's lottery.

Wirral_paul

Ballysmate wrote:

I mean that you are entitled to a pension but directly proportional to the amount of contributions that you make.
ie If you make a full contribution over your working life, you get the full state pension. 50% contribution is halk pension.
Absolute entitlement means that you continue to draw the pension you have accrued, regardless of whether you get 6 numbers in Saturday's lottery.

We're in agreement then mate