State pension age rise needed to balance books

marklv

ILW wrote: »

You were happy to take the money from those that did though. Hypocrite.

I could not give a monkey's fart about what other people do - that's their business. I opted to go to university because I wanted to and yes, I did have a partial grant from the government. So what? And why the hell is that anybody else's business? I did it to further my education and career prospects, as in the 1980s a degree did actually matter. What do you mean by 'take money'? I didn't take money from anyone, you moron. My parents gave me a little help, then there was the grant.

I suggest you get a life instead of !!!!!ing about what other people do.

ILW

So who paid your grant?

marklv

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Sure some will not be able to work for medical reasons, that is why there is something called incapacity benefit.

Smartass. You know full well that there is a grey area that is less than full incapacity but makes working a great strain on the poor sod who has to do it.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

An element of means testing would be fine. But even for the highest level of state pension, I just don't think the state should be giving anything beyond a basic level of support.

Well, is not the basic state pension anything but that? I'm not advocating a £1,000 a week state pension! By the way, Ireland pays a state pension around twice ours.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

I would suggest you do the maths. The solution to every funding issue is not just to add another few % on to the top rate of tax. It simply is not a large enough tax base to make that much of a difference.

Some truth in this, and that's why I am advocating a means testing mechanism.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

People are living longer healthier lives than they have done in the past. This may now be reversing again. But at present it is true. There is incapacity benefit if health issues become too much.

It is not the role of incapacity benefit to be an alternative, lower pension. Once you've worked your backside off for 45 years you should get a state pension - and that is that!!

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

And you show your true personality. Within your world you believe in wealth redistribution from the top to your level. But you don't think your wealth shuold be passed to those with less than you. What a hypocrite.

No, not a hypocrite. What has third world poverty got to do with the UK pensions system? I don't see the connection. If you are UK resident and taxpayer then you need to pay tax to help support the country that you are in. It's as simple as that. Of course, if you don't like it you are free to go and live in some tax haven.

marklv

ILW wrote: »

So who paid your grant?

The government did. Are you now going to start a long rant about taxpayers supporting students? Please feel free to do so because, as I said, I couldn't give a monkey's. Education is education - it needs to be supported - and without universities you would have no doctors, dentists, lawyers and other essential professionals that the nation needs. In any case, the government now no longer offers support to students or even pays their fees, so what are you moaning about?

ILW

I agree with you to a point, if you are a doctor, dentist, etc or you set up a new company which now employs others, then it was a good investment, if you are an overpaid numpty working for the council, I would like my money back please.

Procrastinator333

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm self employed. My pension scheme is my ISA, which, unfortunately, can't even keep pace with inflation.

Let me put this to you. I live in Devon. Most companies are small. Haven't got departments such as HR etc, let alone decent pension schemes.

People work in cafes, they clean, they sell ice creams out of vans, the rent pedal boats and canoes out to tourists, they work in bespoke candle and art gallery shops, they work in, or run guest houses.

There isn't many big companies outside of the 2 cities here.

All of these people I mention probably will not have pension schemes, as they are small companies. The UK is not made up of large companies all throwing money at your pension pot.

Reading this thread I was seriously starting to think "god, it must only be me". But it's not. This is life. People work in small business's with no pension schemes, selling candles in shops. It's what happens outside of London and the major cities. Not everyone is in a high rise building, which is signed up to Investors in People with a trade union to join.

So you have no access to a company pension scheme. But on the flip side you pay lower tax rates than the rest of us. Swings & roundabouts.

And how many of those people who work in high rise buildings would love to be able to work somewhere as beautiful as Devon and have many of those jobs you describe. I would Renting canoes, must be a lovely location, relaxed work, entertaining. It sounds great. So why don't I do it? Because it wouldn't support me, my family now or in the future. That is a choice they have too.

I'm also more agrieved with the people who do have access to schemes and don't save than those who have no access.

Those are also the sorts of jobs it would be quite easy to do a few extra years in.

I'm not the one who has put the country in this position. Blame governments of the last 50 years. There is not enough funding to support the current pension set up in to the future. Something has to change. Probably some combination of means testing and raising of the retirement age. But things have to change.

Graham_Devon

Must admit procrastinator, I'm having trouble discussing this with you now.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

So you have no access to a company pension scheme. But on the flip side you pay lower tax rates than the rest of us. Swings & roundabouts

I'm self employed. I pay the same tax rates as far as I'm aware. I never said I was a LTD company paying myself dividends.

And how many of those people who work in high rise buildings would love to be able to work somewhere as beautiful as Devon and have many of those jobs you describe. I would Renting canoes, must be a lovely location, relaxed work, entertaining. It sounds great. So why don't I do it? Because it wouldn't support me, my family now or in the future. That is a choice they have too.

As I said, having trouble discussing. You seem to have taken everything I said, and simply come back to me with the "but it's beautiful" line.

What does parts of devon being beautiful have to do with ability to pay into a pension?

Also, people have to work to live here. They don't just think "oh, renting out a pedalboat sounds nice, I'll go do that". It's a job, which pays the bills.

I'm also more agrieved with the people who do have access to schemes and don't save than those who have no access.

Those are also the sorts of jobs it would be quite easy to do a few extra years in.

Well thats fine, I understand where you are coming from, but throughout the thread, you have basically told people they are fools for not taking on their company pensions, time after time ignoring everything anyone has said to you about not having access to what you describe.

I'm not the one who has put the country in this position. Blame governments of the last 50 years. There is not enough funding to support the current pension set up in to the future. Something has to change. Probably some combination of means testing and raising of the retirement age. But things have to change.

I'm not blaming you. I just think you need to look outside of your specific company before telling everyone else thats the way it is, and people should do it that way.

I said at the start of this thread, there are MASSIVE problems builiding up. People don't have access to pensions, can't afford them, can't even afford to live life as we've known it over the past few decades, but all you seem hellbent on doing in this thread is telling them if they just put x amount in their pension (that doesn't exist) then it will be sorted.

Procrastinator333

marklv wrote: »

Well, is not the basic state pension anything but that? I'm not advocating a £1,000 a week state pension! By the way, Ireland pays a state pension around twice ours.

Look how well their economy is working out.

marklv wrote: »

It is not the role of incapacity benefit to be an alternative, lower pension. Once you've worked your backside off for 45 years you should get a state pension - and that is that!!

That is not that if there is no money to pay for it! You are like a small child screaming I want I want to a mother who only has money money to buy the basics.

There is no money left. The country is up to it's neck in debt. Spending must be slashed just to stop adding to the pile, let alone to actually reduce it.

marklv wrote: »

No, not a hypocrite. What has third world poverty got to do with the UK pensions system? I don't see the connection. If you are UK resident and taxpayer then you need to pay tax to help support the country that you are in. It's as simple as that. Of course, if you don't like it you are free to go and live in some tax haven.

It is not the pension system so much as the principle. Your favoured policy is to take from the rich to support you and those around you. Yet you would not take from yourself to help those with less than you. How is that not hypocritical?

Sapphire

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

The comments were not aimed at yourself, rather at them, I will try to be clearer in future.

It is their choice to do those things. Up to them. But when they get older they shouldn't get a state pension at 65. If they save up between starting work and 65, good for them. But that is more difficult with every year they wait. Their choice, but they should pay for that choice.

As I said in my previous post on this subject, your statement is irrelevant to what I was talking about. Who cares what you think about their pension arrangements? They are not a subject of the discussion on this thread.

I repeat in case you are still unclear about what I was saying: my response was to your comment about 18-24 year olds not being able to find work, not about their pension arrangements (which I'm sure will be perfectly adequately taken care of without your help, given their parents' affluence and their inheritance). Clear?

Putting it politely, you seem to have tunnel vision.

Procrastinator333

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm self employed. I pay the same tax rates as far as I'm aware. I never said I was a LTD company paying myself dividends.

You pay 8% class 4 NI. Employees pay 11% NI. 3% saving. Is that not correct? And the next part is not a criticism, but you are able to offset a lot of expenses to save more tax (if you don't do this you should investigate).

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What does parts of devon being beautiful have to do with ability to pay into a pension?

Also, people have to work to live here. They don't just think "oh, renting out a pedalboat sounds nice, I'll go do that". It's a job, which pays the bills.

I'm trying to make the point that as with all things in life there is a choice. People chose to live in Devon even though there are lower salaries. They do that for the non monetary reasons. If I could work in Devon doing my current job or another for the same salary I would. But I can't so I live where the work is.

Someone in many of those jobhs is probably close to min wage. They will pay little tax, but in most cases receive far more from the government than they put in. I don't mind that, I really don't. But as a net taker from the government, why shouldn't they wait a few more years to get their pension?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well thats fine, I understand where you are coming from, but throughout the thread, you have basically told people they are fools for not taking on their company pensions, time after time ignoring everything anyone has said to you about not having access to what you describe.

I'm not blaming you. I just think you need to look outside of your specific company before telling everyone else thats the way it is, and people should do it that way.

I apologise, I take your point. Too blinkered in my posting.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I said at the start of this thread, there are MASSIVE problems builiding up. People don't have access to pensions, can't afford them, can't even afford to live life as we've known it over the past few decades, but all you seem hellbent on doing in this thread is telling them if they just put x amount in their pension (that doesn't exist) then it will be sorted.

There are multiple problems.

Many people do have access and waste it. I think we are agreed they need a kick.

Everybody has access to a pension, just not the company contributions. You can still get the advantage of tax savings by setting up a SIPP. Perhaps there should be additional tax breaks for those who do not have access to a company scheme to offset the difference. But anything like this requires the person to contribute too.

Anyway, even if you believe my answers are wrong, the question remains. How should things change? They have to change, money and population demographics have seen to that. If raising the retirment age is wrong, by all means offer up another answer.