The Truth About The State Pension

Paul_Herring

Werthers Originals advert for those who haven't seen it.

Errata

Does anyone know what the SRP woul be today if the link to earnings hadn't been changed ?

marklv

Errata wrote: »

Does anyone know what the SRP woul be today if the link to earnings hadn't been changed ?

Today the basic state pension is £95. Had the link with earnings not been broken in 1980, the pension would be worth £147 today. I don't what you mean by SRP.

Personally, I believe it would be so much better if they ditched the mind bogglingly complicated SERPS/S2P pension and simply paid out £150 a week (or more) basic state pension to every adult aged 65. Simple.

seven-day-weekend

SRP = State Retirement Pension

jamesd

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.

I'm not retired and my core spending comes to around £230 per week. Of that £98 a week is rent leaving me living comfortably on £132 a week after housing costs. That's remarkably close to what the minimum income guarantee provides when you add in housing benefit and less if council tax is reduced.

So, given that I live quite comfortably on those levels, can easily spend more if I choose, but generally don't, why do you think more is required than it takes me to live comfortably?

If you consider "poverty" level do remember that it's set as a percentage of average income, so it goes up as population average income increases. That can produce quirks like poor countries having less "poverty" than rich ones even though the people are worse off.

jamesd

marklv wrote: »

Personally, I believe it would be so much better if they ditched the mind bogglingly complicated SERPS/S2P pension and simply paid out £150 a week (or more) basic state pension to every adult aged 65. Simple.

This is already partly being done, via fiscal drag (not increasing allowances with inflation) and the introduction this year of the Upper Accrual Point cap on earnings that will contribute to a higher additional state pension, while the bulk of it is becoming flat rate over time. It already pays more per Pound contributed to those on lower incomes than on higher.

The current plan is that this plus the new opt out pension savings scheme will cause almost all retirees to have an income just over the minimum income guarantee, so that few people end up getting that means-tested benefit.

Old_Slaphead

marklv wrote: »

Personally, I believe it would be so much better if they ditched the mind bogglingly complicated SERPS/S2P pension and simply paid out £150 a week (or more) basic state pension to every adult aged 65. Simple.

In which case those in company pension schemes would get something for nothing.
People pay extra NI for these benefits so they shouldn't be available to all.

BTW - as per your earlier posting, please let me know why (ie itemise the costs) you think the average pensioner needs £230pw minimum to live on.

bendix

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

In which case those in company pension schemes would get something for nothing.
People pay extra NI for these benefits so they shouldn't be available to all.

BTW - as per your earlier posting, please let me know why (ie itemise the costs) you think the average pensioner needs £230pw minimum to live on.

You're wasting your time Old Slaphead. marklv is all over the place, and never responds to direct questions which challenge his views. Of course, it would help if his views were consistent, but he can't seem to decide what the right pension is . . £230 one minute, £150 ish, the next.

Old_Slaphead

bendix wrote: »

You're wasting your time Old Slaphead. marklv is all over the place, and never responds to direct questions which challenge his views. Of course, it would help if his views were consistent, but he can't seem to decide what the right pension is . . £230 one minute, £150 ish, the next.

I know, I know.

marklv seems to think the world owes him a living. Quite righteously advocating a near doubling of pensions, heavy taxpayer subsidy for his own final salary scheme without much thought for their affordability and reasonableness - and for the poor souls who are going to have to pick up the bill (and who in turn, won't be able to rely on such largess from future generations).

Envisaged demographic changes from the 2020's will make taxpayer-supported pensions much more difficult to finance, at existing levels anyway.

TBH I enjoy reading marklv and your (bendix's) postings - but for totally different reasons.

bendix

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

I know, I know.

marklv seems to think the world owes him a living. Quite righteously advocating a near doubling of pensions, heavy taxpayer subsidy for his own final salary scheme without much thought for their affordability and reasonableness - and for the poor souls who are going to have to pick up the bill (and who in turn, won't be able to rely on such largess from future generations)

Of course, his position is quite understandable when you consider he has recently joined the public sector only to find that all three political parties are now singing the same song that public sector spending needs to be cut. I suspect he feels his move wasn't such a smart one after all