The Truth About The State Pension

marklv

bendix wrote: »

Shouldn't that be the entire aim of all welfare benefits, including the state pension? Enough to keep you from starving and freezing to death.

We seem to think things like holidays and cars and such like are our god-given right. They are not. They are things to be paid for.

The government's duty is to provide a minimum basic level of support to those who can't do it for themselves. By all means, do that, but if people want extras like holidays and cars and Werthers Originals, then people should make their own provision for them.

What is so wrong with that?

The government's duty is to ensure that retired people live above the poverty line. I'm not saying hugely above the poverty line, but above it nonetheless. I do not believe that £130pw is enough to do this - in my estimate a realistic minimum amount of £230pw per person should be in place.

Old_Slaphead

marklv wrote: »

The government's duty is to ensure that retired people live above the poverty line. I'm not saying hugely above the poverty line, but above it nonetheless. I do not believe that £130pw is enough to do this - in my estimate a realistic minimum amount of £230pw per person should be in place.

Would you give me a breakdown of the minimum £230pw per person you deem as the bare minimum necessary to exist on?

FWIW If you're assuming £8pw for building/contents insurance either your basing it on a very large house, you live in a very dodgy area or you're too lazy to research the market. I get both mine for less than £200pa in total (and it's a band D house!)

bendix

marklv wrote: »

The government's duty is to ensure that retired people live above the poverty line. I'm not saying hugely above the poverty line, but above it nonetheless. I do not believe that £130pw is enough to do this - in my estimate a realistic minimum amount of £230pw per person should be in place.

Really? Where is this truism of a government's duty set in stone? I would have thought a more responsible goverment would be to create a society in which people are empowered to be responsible for themselves, rather than reliant on others for their well-being.

As an aside, you seem to have lots of ideas on improving society (by your definition). Things like protected pensions, but for the public sector. Now you're proposing an 80% increase in state pensions.

Who pays for all this?

Paul_Herring

Who pays for all this?

The tax payer?

Old_Slaphead

margaretclare wrote: »

I am darned glad that I have a little more than the basic state retirement to live on. Not rich, but a long way from being poor. DH and I each get pensions plus annuities so we don't have to get into the whole means-testing circus. Nor do we use free bus passes, we prefer our little car. It occasionally needs some attention, like this week when it went for its MOT and ended up needing more work done, some £430 worth. OTOH we recently did approx 2,000 miles in Brittany and Normandy on holiday. You do not mention holidays - these are things that most other people expect, why should retired people not have them? A bag of Werther's Originals (whatever they are) would be unlikely to cover the cost of a holiday. While we were away we saw a lot of older people. Early September is when they go - weather still good, kids back to school, why shouldn't they?

I've spent 20 years ensuring my mother and my partner's mother existed reasonably comfortably on little more than the minimum pension of £130pw. Any extras were provided by either the family or from their own savings. Neither parent went without anything especially home heating (phew, even tropical plants couldn't survive the heat in my mother's house!)

Neither had a car - I don't think it reasonable for the taxpayer to pay for your own preferred transport needs especially when a free bus service is available should you choose to use it. I don't expect the state to provide for your holidays - where would you draw the line....what about a round-the-world cruise paid for by the taxpayer ??

No, pensions should cover the basics - food, council tax, heating fuel, insurance which by my estimates should be about £5200 per person per year and another £1500 as reserve for unexpected other costs. Clearly these costs do not include any special needs.

margaretclare

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

I've spent 20 years ensuring my mother and my partner's mother existed reasonably comfortably on little more than the minimum pension of £130pw. Any extras were provided by either the family or from their own savings. Neither parent went without anything especially home heating (phew, even tropical plants couldn't survive the heat in my mother's house!)

Neither had a car - I don't think it reasonable for the taxpayer to pay for your own preferred transport needs especially when a free bus service is available should you choose to use it. I don't expect the state to provide for your holidays - where would you draw the line....what about a round-the-world cruise paid for by the taxpayer ??

No, pensions should cover the basics - food, council tax, heating fuel, insurance which by my estimates should be about £5200 per person per year and another £1500 as reserve for unexpected other costs. Clearly these costs do not include any special needs.

I never said I expected the taxpayer to pay for my preferred mode of life - you have misunderstood!

Regarding holidays, everyone else expects these and in fact they are included in the definitions of 'relative' rather than 'absolute' poverty.

What I did say was that your original remarks were offensive.

Incidentally, a free bus service is not a lot of use if it does not go where you want to go, nor if you have difficulty walking as far as the bus stop and waiting around for the bus to arrive.

Old_Slaphead

margaretclare wrote: »

What I did say was that your original remarks were offensive.

Other than possibly a flippant remark about a certain brand of butterscotch (which primarily markets itself at the older generation) I'd be interested to know which of my comments you thought offensive and why.

Unfortunately I'm well beyond the first bloom of youth myself so I do tend to be more empathetic towards the older generation - I'm certainly not ageist. My critical remarks relating to some self provision were not aimed at senior citizens more towards marklv who seems to think the state benefits should be closer to £230pw - a level which he thinks is just above the poverty line.

I completely disagree and am interested to know what costs he includes in his 'realistic needs' assessment.

On transport costs - if there is a medical necessity then the state should provided additional consideration....that should be taken as read. If not, then for the vast majority, the free bus service is generous and more than adequate.....try getting on a bus round our way after 9:30am - most of them are full of over 60s and don't stop!

seven-day-weekend

marklv wrote: »

I don't agree - fixed bills (e.g. council tax, utilities) are going to be around £50 a week alone. I think you need around £200 a week net, per person, in order to live decently as a retiree.

If you have your pension made up with Pension Credit you will not have to pay any rent or Council Tax, so therefore any figures quoted are AFTER these housing expenses.

margaretclare

Most pensioners do not have extravagant needs apart from food, fuel and council tax and the occasional bag of Werthers Originals.

This was the remark I took exception to.

You have no right to stereotype 'most' pensioners according to their 'needs' because we are all individuals and are all different. You would not have made a similar remark about e.g. some groups of people liking curry.

Regarding bus passes, I repeat, they are useless unless they go where you want to go. While I accept that it would be possible to get into the nearest town centre to shop, collect your pension (if anyone still does this), and those are the basics, I could not get to the place I go to twice a week for swimming. You might say: at my age I have no right to want to go swimming. I would question your, or anyone else's, right to tell me what harmless pursuits I 'should' or 'should not' engage in. I do not expect anyone else to pay, so what business is it of yours?

Old_Slaphead

margaretclare wrote: »

This was the remark I took exception to.

You have no right to stereotype 'most' pensioners according to their 'needs' because we are all individuals and are all different. You would not have made a similar remark about e.g. some groups of people liking curry.

Regarding bus passes, I repeat, they are useless unless they go where you want to go. While I accept that it would be possible to get into the nearest town centre to shop, collect your pension (if anyone still does this), and those are the basics, I could not get to the place I go to twice a week for swimming. You might say: at my age I have no right to want to go swimming. I would question your, or anyone else's, right to tell me what harmless pursuits I 'should' or 'should not' engage in. I do not expect anyone else to pay, so what business is it of yours?

I think you're getting a bit carried away. What you do, where you go, how you choose to spend your money is of absolutely no concern to me.Why are you trying to develop an arguement into what you think my perception is of what should or shouldn't be funded for you personally ?

The original discussion related to what level of lifestyle it is reasonable to expect the old age pension to support.

I argue that £130pw (+ various add ons) would be sufficient to cover most pensioners reasonable basic needs - OP suggested that figure should be closer to £230pw. I'm trying to ascertain what costs he believes should be funded with this figure.

BTW you're also being ageist by suggesting that pensioners go away in September - they're all individual and different so you shouldn't categorise them !!!!