Cutting the Welfare Bill

kabayiri

Generali reveals.....Pensions, the elephant in the room. It's no real surprise.

The pensions issue can be solved; it's just a question of how many people you upset in solving it.

The biggest complaint I can imagine would be :- "I've saved for my retirement, yet they means test me to pay for others"

So here's a simple question.

Would you rather be :-
a) poorer (but relatively comfortable) in a healthy economy and nation, or
b) wealthier but in a poorer economy ?

StixUK

dtsazza wrote: »

I agree with you there - and on the whole I'm not angry at all at the benefit claimants who are cleverly getting the best they can out of the system. Rather, I'm angry at the system itself for being so generous - which is exactly why I'm in support of these reductions to the amount of other people's money that the government splurges on their behalf.

Of course, if someone is making fraudulent claims then I'd like to see them punished just as much as someone who's evading paying tax. But I have nothing against those that use their initiative to employ tax and benefit "loopholes" to their best advantage - the only solution is to fix the system.

Exactly, the system allows people to take advantage. This is also purported through the CAB, which is inherently wrong as there have been advisors who have been known to fudge figures to make things fit.

My wife went to the CAB when she thought she was going to have problems and they advised that she should up her bills a little bit so that all she had to offer was a "pound a month", it has been commonplace to expect this from people who have been advised by the CAB.

StixUK

drc wrote: »

50,000 too many.

That's a bit harsh, I like the fact that whilst listening to Radio 5Live they stated that there have been possible proposals to stop the "poor" having kids. I think it is a good idea, not only would it create an element of certainty in the UK but also would cut down benefit claims.

BUT....

they would have to do this for the rich as well (i.e China-style policy).

I do have to say that I was a bit peeved to watch this the other day

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2012/jan/17/15-kids-and-counting-review

tibawo

I am one of the people that i work 4 days but if i work another i am actually worse off due to losing some of the benefits. What incentive is there for me to work then.. not exactly going to improve my CV is it or my standard of living.

Killmark

kabayiri wrote: »

Generali reveals.....Pensions, the elephant in the room. It's no real surprise.

The pensions issue can be solved; it's just a question of how many people you upset in solving it.

The biggest complaint I can imagine would be :- "I've saved for my retirement, yet they means test me to pay for others"

So here's a simple question.

Would you rather be :-
a) poorer (but relatively comfortable) in a healthy economy and nation, or
b) wealthier but in a poorer economy ?

There is another element to this though that would cause uproar is this..........

If you had never worked or had insufficient NI credits to qualify for the state pension and therefore also had limited savings/capital then they would still be able to get an amount equal to the basic state pension through pension credit.

How is that fair?

In fact it encourages people who spend most of their lives in welfare and re-enter the workplace in their 40's and 50's to not make any provision for retirement because if they did they'd "lose" out as a result

Of course the spend spend spend mantra might boost the economy so maybe its a good idea.

kabayiri

Killmark wrote: »

There is another element to this though that would cause uproar is this..........

If you had never worked or had insufficient NI credits to qualify for the state pension and therefore also had limited savings/capital then they would still be able to get an amount equal to the basic state pension through pension credit.

How is that fair?

In fact it encourages people who spend most of their lives in welfare and re-enter the workplace in their 40's and 50's to not make any provision for retirement because if they did they'd "lose" out as a result
...

Yeah, I fully acknowledge it isn't fair. I don't think there is a solution out there which is fair to everyone.

Bankruptcy and other debt amnesties are hardly fair, but we allow them to happen. Why? Perhaps we acknowledge there needs to be a reset.

Are you saying that we have to have a 'very poor section of our elderly', a visible poor, so that these act as a deterrent to future pensioners ?

StixUK

Killmark wrote: »

There is another element to this though that would cause uproar is this..........

If you had never worked or had insufficient NI credits to qualify for the state pension and therefore also had limited savings/capital then they would still be able to get an amount equal to the basic state pension through pension credit.

How is that fair?

In fact it encourages people who spend most of their lives in welfare and re-enter the workplace in their 40's and 50's to not make any provision for retirement because if they did they'd "lose" out as a result

Of course the spend spend spend mantra might boost the economy so maybe its a good idea.

Exactly what my dad says to me "wish i never bought my own house or left more than a few grand in savings" because all I have amassed is £25,000 in savings and I own my own home. If I need care or lose my job the state will give me nothing and I will have to use all of my assets first. But hey he is a pessimistic man.

Killmark

kabayiri wrote: »

Are you saying that we have to have a 'very poor section of our elderly', a visible poor, so that these act as a deterrent to future pensioners ?

No think aspiration should be encouraged and there should be visible incentives for pension planning.

We need a change of culture, away from that of entitlement to aspiration and one of the first ways to do that is to tackle benefit dependency.

Having a system where you have two people, 1. pays in to the system all their life and then because they have planned savings or capital doesn't qualify for a state pension is crazy when person 2. has paid nothing into the system and yet will be supported from cradle to grave.

Graham_Devon

tibawo wrote: »

I am one of the people that i work 4 days but if i work another i am actually worse off due to losing some of the benefits. What incentive is there for me to work then.. not exactly going to improve my CV is it or my standard of living.

I assume if you lost the benefits, you'd do the extra day?

kabayiri

Killmark wrote: »

No think aspiration should be encouraged and there should be visible incentives for pension planning.

We need a change of culture, away from that of entitlement to aspiration and one of the first ways to do that is to tackle benefit dependency.

Having a system where you have two people, 1. pays in to the system all their life and then because they have planned savings or capital doesn't qualify for a state pension is crazy when person 2. has paid nothing into the system and yet will be supported from cradle to grave.

You know, I'm in agreement with the change in culture thing. I suspect this will take decades AND some serious political will to achieve though.

I don't see much political will around alas. They'd rather fritter around the edges and pretend it will all come good. Heads in the sand; it's been like that for years.