The problem with the benefit system
Comments
-
Unsustainably so.
The solution to tax the bejesus out of working folk doesn’t necessarily solve the problem either, as plenty of people have pointed out, cozzy lives means saving for a pension is not straightforward, so eating into the already stricken disposable income is probably not that helpful.
0 -
Irrelevant. The main point is that I didn't have to quit early because I had an unsatisfying job and claim I had 'chosen life' 😉
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
🤣🤣🤣
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I had a satisfying and interesting job, mental health nursing. However due to the NHS pension scheme I could retire after 30 years service, pay off my mortgage. Then spend my time sitting on my assets drawing my pensions, cycling with other boomers and not worrying about the high earners in the recruitment sector who find life so unfair.🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
2 -
He might have, but that's irrelevant to the current pension setup being sustainable. Neither do comparisons with other countries explain why pensioners should be protected from any spending cuts when all others who receive benefits are not. Stop fixating on Rick.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
People do know the retirement age will be 68 already by the time it’s 2040something right?
and that DB pensions will soon be extinct and everyone will have had to have saved their own money, anyway, right?
0 -
I really don't think cutting the state pension amount is helpful if it is already low.
If we are on about fixations, why the fixation about the pension? It is 11% of spending. What is your target proportion?
0 -
You're dodging my question. This thread is about benefits. Why should one lot of recipients be viewed as deserving while the others are viewed as feckless individuals who must be grudgingly saved from themselves.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
They're teasing some changes to the single parent 50k income child benefit cliff edge.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
What groups are you talking about? Parents?
0 -
There is a difference, one group has to work to qualify for the full amount where the other group must not work to qualify for the full amount. Not the fault of either recipients.
It bothers me that all UC recipients are painted scroungers and layabouts, as much as it bothers me that all people born between 1946 and 1964 are painted as affluent, lucky layabouts.
0 -
-
I'll confess to being lucky. I'm not affluent and don't layabout very much. More active now than when I worked.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.2 -
Quite well put by Secret Squirrel. This thread has been turning into populist bingo.
0 -
-
Where is the wealth? Is it cash?
Edit: and you would fully expect older people to be wealthier than the 30 somethings. You need to find a more sensible comparison.
0 -
Here's some sensible people talking to each other.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/business-school/ib-knowledge/finance/boomers-versus-millennials-new-perspective-generational-wealth-the-uk/
0 -
You might have to explain how that link doesn't support my major premise, tbh, as I would say exactly the same thing.
Net income after living costs is higher for those retired than not.
0 -
It does support it, perhaps not as starkly. You might want to look at some of the source research as well.
Thing is, your solutions are wrong. So is the general presumption that you are due the same as the boomers. You aren't. Nether am I. It's tough shit, sorry.
Best you can do is move the dial a little bit on a number of things, but drastically moving one of them is going to create manifest unfairness.
For example, if 1 in 5 boomers are millionaires, 4 in 5 aren't. So, means test the pension, you say.
How much would that cost to administer and how much would it save? And would you be means testing by wealth, or income? If it's income, cost would not be worthwhile based on what it would save. If it is wealth, how do you assess that? Government estate agents? Or just wild guesses based on coarse approximations? Council tax bands perhaps? And do you judge it fair to force elderly people to sell or mortgage their homes? Would it be fair to create that new industry to line the pockets of the lenders? Wouldn't that effectively transfer mass ownership of property to corporations?
So how about stop with this simplistic shit and actually go on a real thought exercise or two.
Otherwise, raising the pension age to 68 and removing the triple lock is probably the best bet, and you'll need to come up with a new way to fund healthcare instead.
1 -
The left hand side of this pie chart.
And no I don't have a problem with Child Benefit being taxed back above a threshold.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
A very simple way to means test would be to use a similar system to the way Child Benefit is taxed back.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Sorry, you have accidentally used the word "simple".
0 -
Mmm yes. The absolute values don't get you anywhere unless you have some idea of what you think they should be.
What do you think they should be and how do you propose to get there?
0 -
Where have I said I am due the same? I think you're projecting things I haven't said. We already know it's tough sh!t by the time I am at retirement age. That's exactly what I am saying, duh. The clue is in the word "unsustainable" which I keep repeating over and over.
So far people have got upset because i've suggested a retirement age 2 years older than currently planned (and 11 years younger than the current US president), and because I think pensions should be taken the same way as all other benefits - so not exempt from cuts, and not exempt from being means tested.
So you say the solution is wrong, and spent about 4 pages saying so before coming up with "administration might be expensive" - but why are pensions different to the other benefits?
It could be quite simple to make every household declare what they have in their pension pot. Given it's maxxed at 1 mill anyway clearly there are mechanisms in place to declare how much you have in them.
I think, in reality, you're being rather reactionary to any suggestions to changing the state pension, and your solution is more taxation, which I don't think is the right solution for reasons I've offered before.
I also think the current state pension incentivises the kind of behaviour that Pross has articulated - that people expect the state to pay out. That's utter madness. Can you imagine people saying "I don't need to save, as I'll get paid" that about dole money? There'd be uproar.
It costs as much as the NHS pretty much. It's incredibly expensive. Unsustainably expensive. So we might as well get on with making more sustainable now, rather than kicking the can down the road.
0 -
The issue is not the proportion at a given point but that one is steadily increasing and the others are being squeezed to fund it. You've argued that means testing is too bureaucratic to save money yet you are happy for the other half of the pie to be means tested - in some cases in intrusive medical detail.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
I think lots of people on unemployment benefit will say that they've previously been paying into the system and that expecting it to be there for you if you become unemployed is not unreasonable.
0 -
Where have I said that? There's no option for disability obviously.
If it's not self defeating cost wise, we should probably means test pensions and the NHS as well.
0 -
Explain what isn't simple then? I'm sure I've missed something.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Small bit of the pie though isn't it.
0 -
I find that paraphrasing what people have said is a good way to obtain a more moderate reply.
0
