Should automatic benefits be cut for those who "don't need them"?

grizzly1911

N1AK wrote: »

. However, given that pay increases have on average been well below inflation they done well

That is called enhanced productivity isn't it?;)

chewmylegoff

grizzly1911 wrote: »

No problems with that you can refund all the payments I have made through NI in a nice cash free lump sum and I'll sort myself out thanks.;)

You haven't made any pension payments, you just paid tax. Your NI doesn't fund state pensions any more than VAT does.

N1AK

BobQ wrote: »

I am sure you would use such a measure of success although I would prefer Gandhi's: "You can judge a society by how they treat their weakest members".

The idea that "the elderly" can be blamed for how society at large votes is absurd. Its like blaming rich people for voting for lower taxes, too simplistic.

People can be blamed for the decisions they have made in the past. The fact they are now old doesn't absolve them from it.

Gandhi is revered within India and they have no issue with having a welfare and pension system far less robust than ours. I'm all for looking after the weakest, but it's pretty hard to do that when you're spending all the money you've got paying off debt and giving it to people because their old regardless of whether they need it.

N1AK

grizzly1911 wrote: »

No different to earlier generations that were asked to pay NI and Tax under the then system to provide for their future now if we now start whittling away at there expected package.

If some parents decided to borrow £500,000 and blow it everything on holidays and then passed the debt on to their kids and told them that they were obligated to pay it back and that was fair because their 'earlier generation' did what they told themselves to do we'd probably think that urine was being taken.

They voted for governments that built up unfunded liabilities; it was either ignorance or selfishness. They used the nation as a ponzi scheme to fund a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise afford and most didn't even realise they were doing it.

N1AK

coastline wrote: »

As I've posted I'm not sure if its part of the governments think tank but wether the relief was 20% or 40% we'd still be investing in pensions as they become compulsory by October 2012..

No we wouldn't and certainly not to the same extent. Firstly, the scheme requires auto-enrollment but you can still opt out, which I would if I was a higher rate tax payer and didn't get tax relief. Secondly, many of the people who are paying higher rate tax will be contributing noticably more than 6% of income into their scheme (heck I'm contributing 10% inc contribution matching) which is the legal limit.

Jennifer_Jane

chewmylegoff wrote: »

You haven't made any pension payments, you just paid tax. Your NI doesn't fund state pensions any more than VAT does.

I disagree - it may be that the NI money isn't ringfenced specifically for pensions, but it certainly determines what your pension will turn out to be. It is also a way for people who are not UK taxpayers to be able to get or build up their UK state pensions, or for people who have inadequate State Pension contributions to boost their pensions by paying in extra.

So it's perfectly valid for people to mention their NI contributions in pension terms.

Many people, like myself, lived in other countries and paid in contributions, although I still only receive 60% of the Basic State Pension. I would have been happy to pay sufficient contributions to bring them up to the 44 years required for my year (it's now only 30 years), although there was a limit on what was allowed to be paid extra.

ukcarper

N1AK wrote: »

If some parents decided to borrow £500,000 and blow it everything on holidays and then passed the debt on to their kids and told them that they were obligated to pay it back and that was fair because their 'earlier generation' did what they told themselves to do we'd probably think that urine was being taken.

They voted for governments that built up unfunded liabilities; it was either ignorance or selfishness. They used the nation as a ponzi scheme to fund a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise afford and most didn't even realise they were doing it.

The national debt more than doubled between 2007 and now but you blaim that on pensioners.

Graham_Devon

Just adding in another snippet from another thread I just created.

Council tax benefits....look what's happened..

The findings follow warnings from the Institute of Fiscal Studies that coalition plans to scrap the existing council tax benefit system, which provides discounts for those on low incomes, and to cut the amount spent on such benefits by 10% could be undermined by giving local authorities the power to decide who should get financial help from 2013.

Council tax benefits for pensioners will be ring fenced. The IFS said this would result in much higher cuts to benefits for working-age households in areas where there was a high proportion of older claimants. It added that the 10% cut would force councils to choose between making significant cuts to working-age claimants' benefits, cutting services or increasing council tax.

Just another example really. Not looking to offend etc.

chewmylegoff

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

I disagree - it may be that the NI money isn't ringfenced specifically for pensions, but it certainly determines what your pension will turn out to be. It is also a way for people who are not UK taxpayers to be able to get or build up their UK state pensions, or for people who have inadequate State Pension contributions to boost their pensions by paying in extra.

So it's perfectly valid for people to mention their NI contributions in pension terms.

Many people, like myself, lived in other countries and paid in contributions, although I still only receive 60% of the Basic State Pension. I would have been happy to pay sufficient contributions to bring them up to the 44 years required for my year (it's now only 30 years), although there was a limit on what was allowed to be paid extra.

Yes, that's what the government tells you and how it restricts the amount it pays to some people (notwithstanding pension credit top up, and that it looks like we are going to get a flat rate pension payable to all), but you can't escape from the fact that employee national insurance receipts are only about £45 billion a year and state pension payments are about £70 billion a year (and that's before you take into account all the other things allegedly funded by national insurance).

grizzly1911

N1AK wrote: »

They voted for governments that built up unfunded liabilities; it was either ignorance or selfishness. They used the nation as a ponzi scheme to fund a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise afford and most didn't even realise they were doing it.

Could argue government finances are a ponzi scheme full stop. We all participate in them to a greater or lesser extent - network rail has got massive debts underwritten by the Government for example - who realistically pays for that? Discretionary wars in far flung places that have no real benefit to us as a nation. Student fiance. notionally placing the debt in the individuals name to get it off the balance sheet, - wonder what the write off rate on that lot will be, not to worry we can sort that out 20 years down the line.

Ignorance would be my bet.