We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
MSE News: Pension age rise bought forward
Comments
-
Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »No - because the pension age wouldn't change - or are you too dimwitted to understand that. It seems you are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdumI am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »Utter rubbish. It's not the state but taxpayers who would pay for this through higher contributions.
Because of the way pensions work, you'll be asking future tax payers to cover your pension *and* to try and bail the country out of the huge deficits that have been racked up.
You don't seem to understand either personal finance nor state economics.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »No - because the pension age wouldn't change - or are you too dimwitted to understand that. It seems you are.
He raises a good point though, if you reduce the required contributions to 20 years what happens to people with less than that...and I know a few who'd be happy with continuing to pay zero contributions.0 -
The_Angry_Jock wrote: »He raises a good point though, if you reduce the required contributions to 20 years what happens to people with less than that...and I know a few who'd be happy with continuing to pay zero contributions.
The drop to 30 years stuck me as quite generous; why shouldn't people actually be expected to work to earn a pension? As it happens, my wife has earned very few years by working, but a whole load by raising a kid. I'm not complaining, but even the current system seems generous to me.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
gadgetmind wrote: »The drop to 30 years stuck me as quite generous; why shouldn't people actually be expected to work to earn a pension? As it happens, my wife has earned very few years by working, but a whole load by raising a kid. I'm not complaining, but even the current system seems generous to me.
It's not generous at all. Many people have spells of not working (or being available for work) due to reasons outside their control, eg. raising children, caring for disabled relatives, going abroad to join a partner, etc. Why should they be punished for this? A state pension should be a citizen's right, not something that has to be 'earned'.0 -
gadgetmind wrote: »Because of the way pensions work, you'll be asking future tax payers to cover your pension *and* to try and bail the country out of the huge deficits that have been racked up.
You don't seem to understand either personal finance nor state economics.
I don't believe NI contributions should be used as a pyramid scheme, which is what is currently happening. They should be ringefenced and the funds invested in safe investment vehicles like high interest cash, gilts, etc. One of the reasons the state pension system is creaking is because current taxpayers are paying for existing pension payouts. And also because there is no means testing, which I already pointed out in earlier posts.0 -
Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »It's not generous at all. Many people have spells of not working (or being available for work) due to reasons outside their control, eg. raising children,
Covered by NI credits.caring for disabled relatives,
Covered by NI credits.going abroad to join a partner, etc.
Voluntarily choosing not to accrue benefits in the UK is that person's choice and shouldn't be funded by the UK taxpayer. That person can always choose to pay class 3 contributions to bring their entitlement back to the required level.Why should they be punished for this? A state pension should be a citizen's right, not something that has to be 'earned'.
The right to enjoy the fruits of your own labour is much more important to most than the "right" to a free handout by the state funded by charging ridiculiusly high levels of tax.I am a Chartered Financial Planner
Anything I say on the forum is for discussion purposes only and should not be construed as personal financial advice. It is vitally important to do your own research before acting on information gathered from any users on this forum.0 -
Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »Many people have spells of not working (or being available for work) due to reasons outside their control, eg. raising children, caring for disabled relatives, going abroad to join a partner, etc. Why should they be punished for this?
For most of the examples you have given, other than going abroad, people earn years towards state pension under the existing system.
Sorry, there's no such thing as a free lunch, never has been, never will be. And we're "subjects" rather than "citizens".A state pension should be a citizen's right, not something that has to be 'earned'.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »One of the reasons the state pension system is creaking is because current taxpayers are paying for existing pension payouts.
So, where do you propose this money comes from?And also because there is no means testing, which I already pointed out in earlier posts.
Means testing *discourages* people from saving for themselves, which is why every political party recognises that we need less means testing rather than more, and for people to take responsibility for their own retirement income rather than replying on unaffordable state handouts.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
The right to enjoy the fruits of your own labour is much more important to most than the "right" to a free handout by the state funded by charging ridiculiusly high levels of tax.
There is no direct link between what you pay in NI contributions and what you receive from the state. If there was, maybe we could opt to receive higher state pension by paying in more in NI, but the government doesn't allow that. NI is just a tax like any other, but given another name. So let's pretend that NI is anything other than a tax.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards